( 2026:HHC:29081 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 939 of 2019. Decided on : 16 th July , 2026. Tej Pal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 ex-parte. Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of present petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for following reliefs:- “I) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to adhere the 10 point roster for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) against 10% quota fixed for Junior Engineer (Mechanical) having graduate qualification and the petitioner may very kindly be consider for promotion as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) w.e.f. due date i.e. December, 1997 with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ii) That the letter dated 27.05.2011 vide which the representation/claim of the petitioner has been reje3cted by respondent No.1 at Annexure P-9 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-9, in terms whereof, his representation, was rejected. Annexure P-9 reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to your letter No. PWE-141-7(Mech.)/ES- II/- 27 dated 2.4.11 on the subject cited above and to intimate that representation of Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Shimla-12 has been examined and found that the applicant was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mech.) during the year, 2001 and thereafter got another promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) during the year 2009. After a period of 10 years, he has submitted his objection that roster was not followed during the year, 1997 and requested to promote him w.e.f. 12/1997. At this belated stage it is not appropriate to consider his request. Moreover, in number of cases the Hon’ble Court has held that the cases of seniority and promotions should not be reopened after a reasonable time. Also administratively neither it is rational nor legally sustainable to unsettle the settled positive over a period of 10 years, hence, his representation is rejected.” 3. It is apparently borne out from the impugned order that the petitioner, who at the time of filing the representation, was …2…( 2026:HHC:29081 ) serving as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical), raked up an issue about his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) by stating therein that in the year 1997, the roster to be followed for promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) was not properly followed, which resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1997. 4. It is also apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner was promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the year 2001 and thereafter against the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the year 2009. It was after 10 years that he submitted his objections that the roster was not followed in the year 1997. In this background, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents. 5. This Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. If, according to the petitioner, the roster with regard to the promotion to the post Assistant Engineer was not correctly followed in the year 1997, then the petitioner should have approached the Court within some reasonable time or …3…( 2026:HHC:29081 ) he should have approached the authorities within some reasonable time. Admittedly, he did not do so. 6. He was conferred promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2001, then also he did not rake up the issue of his alleged late promotion. Not only this, thereafter in the year 2009, the petitioner was promoted against the post of Executive Engineer and after he had gained these two promotions, subsequently, he raked up an issue of the alleged denial of promotion to him against the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1997. As, in the meanwhile, many other incumbents stood promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer and seniority lists were issued, which had attained finality, the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the authority on the ground of delay. 7. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Ors. versus Tarsem Singh, (2008)8 SCC 648 while dealing with the issue of belated service matter petitions has been pleased to observe that in the matters where the rights of individuals are …4…( 2026:HHC:29081 ) affected, then belated service petitions are not to be entertained by the Court. Herein, as admittedly Junior Engineers were promoted in between 1997 to 2001 against the post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter in between 2001 to 2009 Assistant Engineers against the post of Executive Engineer, before the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, their rights stood crystallized in the meanwhile and the settled position could not have been unsettled by entertaining a belated and a delayed representation filed by the petitioner. 8. In light of above discussions, as this Court does not find any illegality in the order under challenge, as such, this petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 16th July, 2026. (jai) …5…( 2026:HHC:29081 )