2026:HHC:39776 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16033 of 2026 Decided on: 17.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjana Nayyar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Nemo for respondents No. 4 to 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is a retired government servant. Her representation, essentially seeking retrospective seniority, promotion and consequential benefits, has been turned down by the respondents vide order dated 30.12.2025. Feeling aggrieved, she has preferred this writ petition. 2. The case. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39776 2(i) Petitioner had previously instituted CWP No. 7136/2011 seeking, following substantive relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give work charged status/regularization to the petitioner as Clerk instead of peon, because the petitioner has been working as Clerk since the date of her initial engagement in the respondent department till date, with all consequential benefits as per ration laid down in Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of HP as and when she completed 10 years of service since she was engaged in the month of February, 1991 and till 24.10.2006 she has served the respondent department as daily wager for about 16 years as daily waged Clerk whereas the petitioner was entitled for work charged status/regularization in the month of February, 2001 with all consequential benefits such as; seniority, arrears of pay, promotion etc. whereas. the respondent department has given regularization as Peon to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.10.2006. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits in view of the fact that she was entitled to get work charged/regularization w.e.f. February, 2001.” Respondent-Department had regularized services of the petitioner as Peon w.e.f. 24.10.2006. In the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner claimed work charge status/regularization as Clerk instead of Peon from due date alongwith all consequential benefits such as seniority, 3 2026:HHC:39776 arrears of pay, promotion, etc. The writ petition (TA No. 858 of 2015) was decided by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal on 11.01.2018 with direction to the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner as Clerk on completion of 8 years of continuous service, notionally. Actual monetary benefits were restricted to 3 years prior to filing of the writ petition. The operating portion of the judgment reads as under:- “6. Consequently, the transferred application is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize services of the applicant as clerk on completion of 8 years continuous service notionally and the actual monetary benefits will be restricted to three years prior to filing of the civil writ petition. The benefits shall be granted within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” It is evident that consequential service benefits, prayed for by the petitioner, were not granted to her by the Tribunal. Petitioner did not agitate against the order of the tribunal. However, Respondents-State feeling aggrieved, instituted CWP No. 1772 of 2020. The same was dismissed on 26.03.2024 with following modification in the order passed by the tribunal:- 12. However, we modify the order of the Tribunal to the extent it directed the regularization of services of the respondent as clerk on completion of 8 years 4 2026:HHC:39776 continuous service notionally by directing the petitioners to regularize the services of the respondents as a clerk on completion of 10 years continuous service notionally and uphold the rest of the order as regards the grant of actual monetary benefits. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25256 of 2024 preferred by the respondent-State against the above decision was dismissed by the Apex Court on 14.11.2024. 2(ii) The respondents set out to implement the judgment dated 11.01.2018 as modified by judgment dated 26.3.2024. Office order was issued on 09.12.2024 giving appointment to the petitioner as Clerk w.e.f. 01.12.2001 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 950-1800 with initial start at Rs. 1000 notionally. Actual benefits were restricted to 3 years prior to the filing of the civil writ petition, that is, with effect from 24.04.2008. 2(iii) It appears that petitioner, thereafter, preferred another representation seeking, inter alia, seniority and retrospective promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade II. She instituted CWP No. 11767 of 2025 for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to rectify/correct the seniority list of Clerk as it stood in the year 2001 and assign seniority to the 5 2026:HHC:39776 petitioner at appropriate place therein as per her seniority position. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give promotions to the petitioner as per her entitlement and seniority position to the post of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent Grade-II from the due date(s) at par with her above named junior persons, with all consequential benefits.” The writ petition was disposed of on 23.07.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation within timelines mentioned in the order. The respondents accordingly considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected it vide impugned order dated 30.12.2025 holding that claim of the petitioner was barred by principle of res judicata/ constructive res judicata. The respondents also held that at this belated stage, issue of seniority and promotion cannot be reopened to affect consequential promotions. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order for the reasons:- 3(i) The petitioner had specifically prayed for the relief of work charge status/regularization as Clerk on completion of 8 years of continuous service in CWP No. 6 2026:HHC:39776 7136 of 2011. Apart from this relief, she had also prayed for grant of consequential benefits such as seniority, arrears of pay and promotion etc. The civil writ petition was disposed of as TA No. 858 of 2015 on 11.01.2018 wherein the only relief granted to the petitioner was in relation to regularization of her service as Clerk on completion of 8 years of continuous service. This relief was also granted on notional basis. Actual monetary benefits were restricted to 3 years prior to filing of the civil writ petition. It was later modified by this Court to the extent of conferring regularization upon petitioner as Clerk on competition of 10 years of daily waged service. Remaining part of judgment passed by the Tribunal was kept intact. In case the petitioner had grievance against non-granting of consequential service benefits, in case the petitioner desired seniority and promotion from retrospective date, which reliefs were not granted to her by the Tribunal, it was for her to have laid challenge to the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Petitioner failed to take appropriate steps at the relevant time. In Chief Administrator and Another Vs. Dr. Abhaya Charan Mishra2, it was held that there 2 1999 SCC ((L&S) 660 7 2026:HHC:39776 would be deemed refusal in case a relief was prayed for, but not granted:- “1. Special leave granted. 2. It appears that in the earlier petition filed by the respondent, OANo. 7 of 1988, that very relief was sought, but the same was not granted, in that, there was no reference to that relief. Counsel for the respondent says that it was on account of the fact that it was not pressed. Be that as it may, the relief was sought in view of Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, if the relief is sought and was not granted by the Court for whatever reason, a fresh petition seeking the very same relief could not have been entertained. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in entertaining the second petition and granting the relief which was not granted in the earlier petition merely because in the judgment of the earlier petition, there is no reference to that relief. The rule of res judicata should apply in such cases. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct that the relief in regard to salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work granted by the Tribunal was not admissible to the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.” It is also settled principle that reliefs available at the time of filing of a petition, but not claimed then, cannot be prayed for years later. It will be in place to 8 2026:HHC:39776 extract following paragraphs from Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India3:- “22. It would be evident from the above that the reliefs claimed in this petition were available to the petitioner even at the time when he alongwith others filed CWP No. 10808 of 1994 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Therefore, obviously even while filing CWP No. 491 of 2001, the pleas raised in the writ petition before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court were available to him at that time. Yet, the petitioner did not choose to take those pleas and surprisingly after relinquishing the basis of his relief(s) as was claimed in CWP No. 10808 of 1994 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and CWP No. 491 of 2001, the petitioner obviously cannot now base his claim on the basis of letters dated 30.01.1990 and 04.07.1991 on the principles of “might and ought” which is contained in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. 23. It is more than settled that although the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to writ petition but the principles enshrined therein would certainly apply.” 3(ii) The impugned order indicates that the petitioner has been given appointment as Clerk w.e.f. 01.01.2001 pursuant to implementation of judgment dated 11.01.2018 as modified on 26.03.2024. Petitioner now claims that those who were appointed as Clerk during the years 2002 and 2003 have been promoted as Junior 3 CWP No. 2159 of 2008 decided on 19.12.2017 9 2026:HHC:39776 Assistants, during the years 2009 and 2011, as Senior Assistant, during the years 2014 and 2016 and further promoted as Superintendent Grade II during the year 2021, therefore, she also deserves to be promoted accordingly. The respondents are justified in observing in the impugned order that promotions of those claimed as juniors by the petitioner were not effected on a single day or in a particular year, but have been effected during long span of time, i.e., with effect from the year 2002 to 2021. During this long span of time, petitioner did not raise any objection regarding promotion of these persons. Petitioner was also satisfied with the order passed by the learned Tribunal restrictively granting her the relief of work charge status/ regularization as Clerk from due date and withholding claimed benefits of seniority and promotion. ‘Consequential benefits’ were not granted to the petitioner. Additionally, it needs to be noticed that opening the issues of seniority and promotion at this stage would adversely affect large number of employees. Such issues cannot be dug up after lapse of reasonable period as the same would disturb the settled position and would affect competing settled and vested rights of others. 10 2026:HHC:39776 For the forgoing, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 17, 2026 Judge R.Atal