2026:HHC:36655 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1088 of 2021 Decided on: 27 .08 .2026 Sanjana Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 20581 of 2026 For the reasons assigned, this application seeking early haring of the petition is allowed. CWP No. 1088 of 2021 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for consideration and heard today itself 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “1). That the present petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents no. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed the release the salary of the petitioner from 1st April, 2015 to 15th April, 2015 and for 2nd June. The respondents No. 1 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:36655 to 3 may further be directed to release the salary of the petitioner from December, 2015 to July, 2016 along with interest @ 18%, which has been illegally withheld by the respondents no.1 to 3 along with interest and cost.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is before this Court seeking salary from the month of December 2015 to July 2016, which has been wrongly withheld by the respondents, as has been spelled out in the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner is claiming salary from the month of December 2015 to July 2016 by way of this writ petition, which was filed on 24th February 2021. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that though the State is not admitting the claim of the petitioner on merit, but in the light of the fact that the petition is not maintainable, being hit by delays and laches, the same deserves to be dismissed on said account alone. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was agitating the issue with the authorities time and again and even otherwise, the issue raised by the petitioner is a continuing cause of action. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the pleadings as also the documents appended with the record, this Court is of the considered view that 3 2026:HHC:36655 the present petition is hit by delay and laches. 8. The claim of the petitioner is regarding the release of her salary for the period from December 2015 to July 2016. This writ petition seeking the said relief has been filed in the Court on 24th February 2021, i.e. after five years as from the month of July 2016 when the cause of action accrued. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648 has been pleased to hold that normally a belated service-related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition, or limitation where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that one of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to continuing wrong. Hon’ble Supreme Court also thereafter held that if the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which relates to or affects several others also and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter went on to hold that if the claim involves issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and the doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply 4 2026:HHC:36655 and as a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 10. In terms of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as herein, the case is with regard to relief of recovery of arrears, the same has to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. As the writ petition was filed on 24th of February 2021, three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition takes us to 23rd of February 2018. However, in the present case, the claim of the petitioner is with regard to the arrears of salary for the period in between December 2015 to July 2016. As this period is beyond the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the ground of the writ petition being hit by delay and laches. Ordered accordingly. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27 , 2026 (narender)