Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16602 (HP)

Goverdhan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-25

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vashishat, Mr. Abhishek Nagta and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondent No.1, respondents No.2 to 4 & 6, respondent No.5 and respondent No.7, respectively. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I) That the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) and office order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondent No. 3- Director Transport, Himachal Pradesh and subsequent office order dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by the respondent No. 5-CEO may kindly be quashed and set-aside being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory & constitutionally void & the petitioner be deemed to have been absorbed permanently in the Department 7 retired from service of the same department for all intents & purposes, by issuing writ of Certiorari & justice be done; (ii)  That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to sanction and authorize pension from due date in favour of the petitioner by reckoning his entire qualifying service rendered with the respondent-Board as well as the respondent-department and the arrear of pension be released to him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in light of the judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014 titled as Nek Ram vs. State of HP and others and justice be done.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Spinning Organizer in the month of June, 1978, with respondent No.5 and he served as such till 2003 and with effect from 23.08.2003, he was deployed to the Transport Department on secondment basis. His grievance is that despite the fact that he served with the Transport Department since the year 2003, vide Annexure P-10, dated 28.09.2015, the petitioner was unceremoniously repatriated to his parent organization. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-11, dated 30.09.2015, he was superannuated from the services of the Board without absorbing him in the Transport Department. The prayer of the petitioner is that this act of the respondents of not absorbing him in the Transport Department be declared as bad and respondents be directed to absorb him in the said Department from due date. 4. The prayer of the petitioner is that this act of the respondents of not absorbing him in the Transport Department be declared as bad and respondents be directed to absorb him in the said Department from due date. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 as also respondent No.7, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the delays and laches. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that herein the petitioner was sent on secondment basis to the Transport Department in the year 2003, he was repatriated to his parent Department Vide Annexure P-10, dated 28.09.2015 and he stood superannuated by his parent Department in terms of an Annexure P-11, dated 30.09.2015. However, the petitioner never agitated, what is being agitated by him by way of this writ petition earlier, i.e., prior to the year 2026 and it is after 10 years as from the date of his superannuation that he is raising this plea, which is a belated plea now and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delays and laches. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the prayer of the petitioner for absorption was rejected vide Annexure P-2, dated 31.12.2025, therefore, the petition is not hit by delays and laches. 7. This Court is of the considered view that this petition indeed is hit by delays and laches. It is not in dispute that after the petitioner was sent on secondment basis to the Transport Department, he never raised the issue of his absorption in the said Department, before his superannuation. It is also a matter of record that after the petitioner was repatriated to his parent Department  vide  Annexure  P-10,  dated  28.09.2015  and thereafter, he retired from his parent Department vide Annexure P-11, dated 30.09.2015, he again did not agitate the said office order or the factum of him not being absorbed in the Transport Department immediately or within some reasonable time. Even the representation which has been rejected in terms of Annexure P-2 was filed on 24.11.2025 and in the entire writ petition there is no whisper as to why the petitioner has raised this issue at such a belated stage and what prevented him from raising the issue when the cause of action existed or immediately after his superannuation. 8. Even the representation which has been rejected in terms of Annexure P-2 was filed on 24.11.2025 and in the entire writ petition there is no whisper as to why the petitioner has raised this issue at such a belated stage and what prevented him from raising the issue when the cause of action existed or immediately after his superannuation. 8. Therefore, as this Court concurs with the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents, that the petition is hit by delays and laches, the present petition is dismissed and the order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2), dated 31.12.2025 is upheld. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.