IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5618 of 2026 Decided on 21st April 2026 Roop Lal Mehta …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- (I) “This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to quash the memorandum dated 04.11.2019 and restore the notification dated 29.03.2013 by granting benefit of enhancement of retirement from 58 to 60 years to the petitioner. (II) To extend the benefit of retirement age from 58 to 60 years to the petitioner being a Blind disabled person to the extents of 100% alongwith all other consequential benefits and arrears of pay, promotion etc. (III) That the respondents may be directed to consider the detailed representation dated 05.10.2025 of the petitioner in view of the Bhupinder Singh and Krishan Chand’s case (supra) during the pendency of the writ petition.” 2 2. Relief claimed by the petitioner for quashing of office memorandum dated 04.11.2019. This office memorandum reads as under:- “The undersigned is directed to refer to this department office memorandum of even number dated 29th March, 2013 on the above cited subject vide which retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in respect of blind Government employees was enhanced. Now after careful consideration of the matter the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that this Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013 be hereby withdrawn with immediate effect, in public interest. Special Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh” 3. This Court is of the considered view that as the office memorandum was issued in the year 2019, the cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner at that time to assail the same. The contention of the learned counsel that the cause of action has arisen now, when the petitioner has superannuated, does not finds favour with this Court for the reason that as on the date when office memorandum dated 04.11.2019 was issued, the petitioner was aware that the same would adversely affect him, as the age of retirement of persons like the petitioner stood reduced from 60 to 58 years. 3 4. Therefore, as there is no cogent explanation as to why the office memorandum issued in the month of November, 2019 is being assailed in the year 2026, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 21, 2026 (Vinod)