2025:HHC:26590 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.237 of 2025 Decided on: 05.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Tilak Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Milk Producer Federation and another ….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellants: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1-H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producer Federation. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by three of the writ petitioners, out of seven writ petitioners, who were successful before the learned Single Judge by the order dated 31.10.2023 in CWP No.4700 of 2022, titled as Surinder Kumar and others Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation & Anr. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:26590 - 2 - 2. Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition for consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager [Quality Control/Purchase/Store/ Marketing/MIS/P&I] against the vacancies available in the years 2015-2016 for the period prior to amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, on the ground that they have been fighting for their rights for years together. However, the categorization was made that majority of the petitioners already stood retired and they would be entitled for notional basis and the persons in service would be entitled for actual benefits on account of promotion to the higher posts. Relevant portion, as such, reads as under:- “6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Quality Control/ Purchase/Store/Marketing/MIS/P&I) against the vacancies, if any, available in the year 2015-2016 or in a period prior to amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules in terms of un-amended Rules. Since petitioners herein have been fighting for their rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant judgment 2025:HHC:26590 - 3 - shall be done by the respondent-Corporation expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Since majority of the petitioners already stand retired, they shall be entitled to notional benefits but persons in service shall be entitled for actual benefits on account of promotion, if any, to the higher posts. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 3. Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that benefits, as such, should have been granted at par and these appellants were also entitled for other financial benefits also. 4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the case revolved around the decision, as such, taken regarding the issue of promotion in the year 2016 and eligibility between the years 2015 to 2017 at that relevant time. Apparently, the writ petition was only filed in the year 2022 and it was in such circumstances the learned Single Judge restricted the benefits only to the notional aspect since they stood already retired and, therefore, they were denied financial benefits. 5. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment passed in LPA No.175 of 2021, titled as Jyoti Prakash Versus Himachal Pradesh University & Anr., to assert that the benefit, as such, would be 2025:HHC:26590 - 4 - given at par with the serving employees. 6. A perusal of the memo of parties in the writ petition would go on to show that the present appellants who were arrayed as writ petitioners No.3 to 5 had already crossed the age of superannuation when they filed the writ petition, including others, who have not filed the appeals and then had not agitated their grievances at the right time. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge had distinguished the two cases of serving employees and retired employees while deciding two cases. The classification has been made, as such, thus, for valid reasons. 7. It is settled principle that right of promotion has to be agitated at the earliest in service law. The issue of limitation has direct criteria even to throw out the persons and deny the relief if there is a delay. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that having not agitated for their relief within their service period, as such, learned Single Judge has rightly not granted the financial benefits to the appellants. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any plausible reasons, as such, to interfere with the well-reasoned 2025:HHC:26590 - 5 - order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we dismiss the present appeal. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 05, 2025 [Bhardwaj]