2026:HHC:26768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9310 of 2023 Decided on: 06.07.2026 Sh. Ramesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Dushyant Dadwal and Shashwat Dadwal, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Addl. AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That the respondents may please be directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner taking into account the annexure P- 1, judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court, after granting him the benefit of promotion w.e.f 1-1-94 & granting his increments of 8 & 16 years immediately in 2002 & 2010 respectively, which was done in 2009 while fixing his pay in that year & releasing his pay scale of Rs 4550/- instead of Rs 4020/- w.e.f 1-1-96 of Grade-II, as is clear from P-4, with the further directions to release ears within some time bound period with interest @ 10% per annum & then refix his pension also after his retirement. b) That the entire & complete record of the pay fixation 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26768 in the case of petitioner vis-à-vis his counterparts as also that of other petitioners in COPC 186/2011 along with details of noting sheets, comparative chart drawn on the basis of records relating to category-III, may please be called unto this Hon'ble Court to satisfy the judicial conscience of this D Hon'ble Court & to do the substantial justice to the poor petitioner, who has been made to run from pillar to post.” 2. The petitioner, when filed this writ petition in the month of September, 2023, was 64 years old. He raked up an issue with regard to re-fixation of his pay on account of a judgment passed by this Court, copy whereof is appended with this petition as Annexure P-1. A perusal of Annexure P-1 demonstrates that Annexure P-1 is not a judgment, as has been mentioned in the petition but it is an order passed in a contempt proceeding, which contempt proceeding arose out of a judgment that was passed in CWP-T No.5265 of 2008, decided on 23.06.2010. Meaning thereby that persons similarly situated as the petitioner, had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal well in time for the redressal of their grievances and after abolition of the Tribunal, the original application stood transferred to this Court, where it stood registered as CWP-T No. 5265 of 2008 and adjudicated upon as far back as in the year 2010. Annexure P-7 demonstrates that on 29.07.2013, a representation was filed by the petitioner, in which, it was 3 2026:HHC:26768 mentioned that fixation which stood done on the basis of directions passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings vide Annexure P- 3, dated 25.06.2012, was erroneous and accordingly, a prayer was made to do the re-fixation. 3. A perusal of the petition demonstrates that thereafter, the petitioner took no steps either to approach the Authority till the year 2019, when he again filed a representation i.e. Annexure P-9, or the appropriate Court of law for the redressal of his grievance. 4. Even after 2019, the petitioner slept over the matter till 2023, when he filed this writ petition. 5. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is grossly hit by delays and laches. The petitioner should have been vigilant of his legal rights and should have had approached the appropriate Court of law within reasonable time as from the date when cause of action accrued to him. 6. According to the petitioner, he was aggrieved by issuance of Annexure P-3 which was issued in the year 2012. The filing of this writ petition after 11 years of the issuance of said office order/communication, by stretch of imagination, can be said to be approaching the Court within some reasonable time. 7. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, in service matters, belated cases can be entertained by the Court by 4 2026:HHC:26768 restricting the monetary benefits as up to three years as from the date of filing of the writ petition, however, as in the present case, it is Annexure P-3, which comes in the way of the petitioner in seeking the relief, quashing thereof ought to have been prayed within some reasonable time. Incidentally, even in this writ petition, though the prayer is that respondents be directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner, taking in to account, Annexure P-1, there is no prayer for setting aside of Annexure P-3, which is the bone of contention, as is evident from the first representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, where it is mentioned so. Therefore, in light of above observations, as this petition is hit by delay and laches, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 06, 2026 (narender)