2026:HHC:19906 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7631 of 2023 Decided on: 26.05.2026 Sh. Kashmir Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No. 3 at the instance of the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside so far it relates to restriction of claim of the petitioner to three years prior to filing the original application bearing O.A. No. 5106/2017 before the learned Tribunal being arbitrary, illegal, void ab-initio, non-est and violative of the judgment dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P-1) rendered by the learned Tribunal, by issuing a writ of Certiorari and justice be done. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears of pay & allowances to the petitioner as Fitter Grade-I for the entire periods w.e.f; 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2016 instead of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 periods with effect from 01.02.2014 to 31.08.2016 and accordingly, pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity, leave encashment may also be revised, while extending the benefit of 4-9-14 years of service under new Assured Career Progression Scheme and arrears be paid accordingly to the petitioner alongwith interest @9% per annum. (iii) That a writ of mandamus may further be 023 issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears of revised pay scales w.e.f; 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2016 and pension, gratuity and leave encashment be further revised and arrears to this effect be released to the petitioner alongwith admissible interest and justice be done.” 2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.5106 of 2017, titled Shri Kashmir Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, praying for the reliefs that the respondents be directed to grant work charge status of a Pipe Fitter Grade-I, instead of Fitter Grade-II, to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996, with consequential benefits etc. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 04.10.2017, in the following terms:- “3. The original application has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- 7(i) "The respondents may kindly be directed to grant work charge status of a Pipe Fitter Grade-1 instead of Fitter Grade-Il to the applicant w.e.f. 3 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits strictly in the light of the judgment dated 11.01.2008 contained in Annexure A-3, as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. vide its judgment dated 14.07.2015 contained in Annexure A-4; since, the applicant is a similarly situate employee like Shri Hari Dutt (Applicant in Ο.Α.(M) No.351/1997). (ii) That respondents may further be directed to pay arrears of pay & allowances to the applicant, flowing out of grant of work charge status as Fitter Grade-I w.ef. 01.01.1996 along-with interest @ 12% per annum." 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits at the very outset that the case of the applicant is squarely covered under order dated 11.1.2008, Annexure A-3, passed der orde by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA-(M) 351/1997, Hari Dutt Versus State of H.P. and Ors., as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated July 14, 2015, Annexure A-4, in CWP No.1744 of 2008, State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Hari Dutt.” In compliance thereto, the petitioner was offered the post of Fitter Grade-I in work charge category in the IP&H Department w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and with regularization w.e.f. 91.06.2001. The claim of arrears of the petitioner was restricted from the date of filing of the Original Application in terms of instructions dated 12.12.2011, issued by the Finance Department. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court. 4 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that restriction of monetary relief in favour of the petitioner three years from the date of filing of the Original Application is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that as the learned Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the case of the petitioner with the direction that similar benefits be conferred upon the petitioner as were conferred to the persons in the judgments relied upon by him, which are reflected in the order passed in the Original Application, the monetary benefits should not have been restricted upto three years in the case of petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the monetary benefits were restricted upto three years in light of instructions of the Finance Department as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2819. He submitted that as there was considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court, he cannot claim the benefit from due date because there is no justification why he did not approach the learned Tribunal within some reasonable time from the date when the cause of action accrued. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith. 7. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was so 5 filed in the year 2017, claiming benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The Original Application of the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Tribunal in terms already quoted hereinabove. 8. Pursuant thereto, the Authority passed Office Order dated 14.01.2019, granting the relief of appointment against the post of Fitter Grade-I w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to the petitioner, but by restricting the arrears from three years of the date of filing of the Original Application. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner filed the Original Application in the year 2017, which was after a considerable time as compared to the date from which the relief was being prayed for by the petitioner. Obviously, for his omission to come to the Court earlier, he could not have been paid premium by giving him actual monetary relief from the due date. 10. The judgments, benefit of which was being sought by the petitioner, originated from an Original Application, which was filed by original applicant Hari Dutt as far back as in the year 1997. Order of learned Administrative Tribunal in said Original Application was affirmed by way of CWP No.1744 of 2008, by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the year 2008 itself, i.e. on 11.01.2008. This means that even as from the date when the judgment of the learned Tribunal in Hari Dutt’s case was affirmed by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Court after almost nine years. This delay, obviously as observed hereinabove also, does not deserve any 6 premium and, therefore, in this backdrop this Court finds no arbitrariness or illegality in the act of the Authority in restricting the monetary benefit to three years preceding the filing of the Original Application. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others Versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, has been pleased to hold that the principles underlying continuing wrong and recurring/ successive wrongs stand applied to service law disputes. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that normally a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and latches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exception to the said rule is cases related to a continuous wrong. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even there is a long delay in seeking the remedy, with reference to the date on which continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But then there is an exception to the exception and the same is that if the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue will affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in such like cases as far as consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the 7 past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply and the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to eight years normally to a period of three years prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition. 12. Thus, in light of the said law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the decision of the Authority, in terms whereof, the arrears payable to the petitioner have been restricted to three years as from the date of filing of the writ petition. 13. Accordingly, in light of above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is another prayer of the petitioner which is with regard to revision of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This Court is not making any observation qua the said relief and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Authority afresh on the said issue. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 26, 2026 (Rishi)