IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10561 of 2026 Decided on 01st July, 2026 Dr. Vinod Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “1) The present petition may kindly be allowed by declaring the period of suspension from 03.07.2020 to 09.03.2021 as invalid, illegal and punitive. 2. The respondents may also kindly be directed to treat the period of suspension from 03.07.2020 to 09.03.2021 as duty period for all purposes. 3. The respondents may also kindly be directed to pay the full salary for the period of 03.07.2020 to 09.03.2021 to the petitioner forthwith alongwith interest.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present case the petitioner was placed under suspension, in terms of order dated 03.07.2020. Subsequently, in terms of Annexure P-20, dated 10.03.2021, the suspension order was revoked. He submits that in the light of the fact that the suspension order was not reviewed within 90 days as from the date when the order of suspension was passed, the same had become non-est on the expiry of 90 days and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking a declaration that the suspension order be held to be non-est as after 90 days from the date of the passing of the same. 4. On a query raised by the Court as to what is the fate of the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the departmental proceedings stand stayed by this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e., CWP No.555 of 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available the pleadings of the earlier writ petition. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the month of January, 2021 seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure P-48) issued by respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and the petitioner may please be ordered to be reinstated forthwith and the period of suspension may please be ordered to be treated as on duty. (ii) That the charge-sheet served by memorandum dated 31.08.2030 (Annexure P-55) by respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the preliminary inquiry being conducted by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Palampur vide order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-60) on the order of respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed.” 6. Incidentally, as on the date when the earlier writ petition was filed, though the petitioner had assailed therein the suspension order dated 03.07.2020 also, but, this plea was not raised therein that the suspension order had become invalid on the expiry of 90 days on account of non-review thereof within 90 days as per the provisions of Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 7. In the light of the fact that the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner after the expiry of three months as from the date of the passing of the suspension order, this relief was available to the petitioner at the time when the earlier writ petition was filed, but, the petitioner did not chose to agitate the same. For the redressal of the said issued now the petitioner has approached the Court by way of this writ petition after five years. 8. Order II Rule 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code inter alia provides that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. 9. In the present case, as the relief being prayed for in the present case was available to the petitioner at the time when the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition i.e., CWP No.555 of 2021, the petitioner should have had sought the said relief in the earlier writ petition or he ought to have sought leave of the Court to agitate the issue subsequently. 10. Having failed to do so, this petition is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 01, 2026 (Vinod)