1 ( 2026:HHC:20992 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.846 of 2026 in LPA No.331 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 29.05.2026 Som Prakash ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan and Ms. Abhidha, Advocates. For the Respondents: : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.846 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed off accordingly. LPA No.331 of 2026 3. Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWPOA No.650 of 2019 titled as Som Prakash Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 17.03.02026, wherein prayer had been made that the employee-petitioner be promoted w.e.f. 23.12.1982 as Deputy Ranger, with all benefits of further promotion as Rangers etc., 4. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was delay and laches as such and the fact that the petitioner could not found his place in the merit list of the Departmental candidates at State level in 1982. It was also noticed that respondent No.4 had already been superannuated from the post of Range Forest Officer in the year 2009 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2011. 5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the cause of action as such arose on 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-2), when one-Hari Ram’s representation had been accepted and he was appointed as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 23.02.1982 notionally and on temporary basis with immediate effect. 6. A perusal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner- appellant would go on to show that one-Hari Ram was never impleaded as a respondent, but one-Amar Lal Bhatia was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. As per the averments made in the writ petition that Hari Ram had obtained 3 60% marks in his matriculation and Amar Lal Bhatia had obtained 39% marks in his matriculation and the said representation had been allowed on the ground that one-Amar Lal Bhatia- respondent No.4 had been selected, as he had only got 39% marks in his matriculation, whereas, the Hari Ram had secured 60% marks in his matriculation with 1st Division. 7. Thus, the plea taken in the writ petition as such was that the petitioner-appellant be considered for appointment on 23.12.1982 as Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department of State of Himachal Pradesh and given all the benefits of seniority and promotion with pecuniary benefits of pay scales and be appointed on promotional post from due date. 8. The case of respondent No.4 is that he belongs to the scheduled caste category and the petitioner-appellant belongs to the general caterogy and the quota under which the petitioner-appellant had applied was different and he was not selected to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1982 though he had appeared in the interview and he had only been promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger only on 06.12.1999 and his right was never infringed. 9. It is not disputed that the present appellant is a promottee as such and comes from a different mode and not 4 appointed as Deputy Ranger and the specific date of his promotion has also not been mentioned in the writ petition. 10. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that at the fag end of his career when he was 57 years old he could not have filed the writ petition in 2011, as he was satisfied with the promotion given in the year 1999. 11. It is settled principle that in service matters as such disputes pertaining to promotion cannot be raked up at the mere asking at the fag end of the service and the employee once satisfied with the promotion, merely on account of the fact that somebody else having been granted the benefits on account of having agitated for his rights and the said rights having been given on account of the rectification done as earlier, the apointment had not been made though Hari Ram had been higher in the merit list cannot give a cause of action. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the claim as such with retrospective promotion from the year 1982 at the belated stage cannot be taken up on account of delay and laches and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 13. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. 5 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 29th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)