2026:HHC:22606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9137 of 2026 Decided on : 17.06.2026 Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- “(i). That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and directing the respondent-Board to grant the petitioner an opportunity to exercise the option under Regulation 11(iv) of the Revised Pay Regulations, 2009 at the time of his appointment/promotion to the post of Superintendent (D/A); (ii) Direct the respondent Board to release all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, along with interest @ 3% per annum from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment; (iii) Direct the respondent Board to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the option so exercised and in terms of the applicable regulations;” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2026:HHC:22606 2. A perusal of the petition demonstrates that the petitioner had represented to the authority for providing an opportunity to exercise his option under Regulation 11 (IV) of Revised Pay Regulation-2009 qua pay fixation on his appointment/promotion as Superintendent (D/A) and the request of the petitioner was turned down by the authority on 17.07.2014 in terms of Annexure P-4 (Colly). 3. There is no cogent explanation given in the entire writ petition as to why the rejection of the request of the petitioner was not assailed by the petitioner within some reasonable time before the appropriate FORA. After 12 years the petitioner has approached this Court raking up the same issue, which attained finality on the rejection of the request of the petitioner on 17.07.2014. Therefore, apparently, as the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioner cannot succeed without assailing communication/order dated 17.07.2014, which order was not assailed by the petitioner for the last 12 years nor the same has been challenged in the present petition, accordingly, the present petition being hit by delay and laches is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 17, 2026 (meera)