Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Bhupinder Kumar Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others - Respondents
CWPOA No. 347 of 2019
Decided On : 18-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr.Y.K.Thakur Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate and Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate
Service claims for cadre absorption rejected for lack of application, typing test failure, lower seniority, and gross delay/laches; representations do not revive stale grievances.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Absorption into Executive Clerical Cadre (Accounts Branch) - No absorption granted since 1983 as no application or consent submitted that year; lower seniority led to rejection in 1986; reserved category posts filled in 1990; failure to appear in mandatory typing test in 1995-96 and 2001, with exemption rightly denied per standing orders; juniors' absorption in 2001 not comparable without proof of identical circumstances - Claim suffers from delay and laches as petition filed in 2010 against events from 1983, representations do not revive stale claims. (Paras 6(i) to 6(vii), 7)
(B) Limitation and Delay - In service matters, negligence or inaction bars condonation; sufficient cause required for delay; pendency of representations or decisions thereon do not extend limitation or erase laches; stale grievances cannot be agitated after years, even post tribunal era. (Paras 7(i), 7(ii))
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Failure to challenge specific rejection order disentitles relief; court not to interfere in administrative discretion on exemptions or standards. (Para 6(vii))
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, appointed as constable in 1980, sought absorption in executive clerical cadre accounts branch from 1983, with name forwarded in 1983, 1991, 1993; representations made but rejected in 2010; juniors absorbed; petition filed in 2010 claiming seniority from 1980, consequential benefits, interest.
Findings of Court:
All claims for absorption in specific years rejected on factual and procedural grounds; delay and laches fatal; rejection order of 2010 upheld.
Issues: Whether entitled to retrospective absorption since 1983 ignoring juniors' induction; validity of non-absorption due to no application, seniority, typing test failure, reservations; impact of delay on service claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Absorption requires consent/application pre-standing orders, passing typing test post-1999 mandatory; non-fulfillment and inordinate unexplained delay bar equitable relief; representations do not create fresh cause of action for stale issues. Result : Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's absorption claims since 1983 based on seniority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents cite no application, seniority, typing failure. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Bhupinder Kumar Mehta, a retired Honorary Head Constable, initially filed CWP No. 6911 of 2010, which was transferred to Learned State Administrative Tribunal and has now been transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 347 of 2019, praying for the following reliefs:-
(i) that the Respondent No. 2 may please be directed to induct and absorb the Petitioner in ECC [Executive Clerical Cadre] Accounts Branch since 1983.
(ii). Further directed to place the petitioner in its right position in the seniority list in accordance with his seniority countable on the basis of joining of service in the Police Department w.e.f. 21.04.1980 which is due since 1983 till date with all consequential benefits.
(iii). That the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the difference amount as will be calculated on the withheld monetary benefits, in case the prayer clause 2 is allowed in favour of the petitioner.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed-recruited as Constable in the Police Department on 21.04.1980. It is averred that in 1982 petitioner applied for induction in the ECC [Executive Clerical Cadre] in Account’s Wing/Branch and his name was forwarded by the Commandant 1st Battalion, HPAP Battalion, Junga, District Shimla to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police and Training, H.P., Shimla on 02.03.1983 [Annexure P-1]. It is further averred that on 22.07.1991 [Annexure P-2] the name of the petitioner was again forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur at Rekong-Peo to the Director General of Police for being considered for absorption in the Executive Clerical Cadre in the Accounts Wing. It is further averred that on 06.03.1993 [Annexure P-3], name of the petitioner was again forwarded for being considered for absorption in the said cadre but the juniors were inducted in the said cadre which is clear from the RTI information so furnished to the petitioner.
2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the non- consideration and non-absorption in the Executive Clerical Cadre in the Accounts Wing in response to the communications dated 02.03.1983 [Annexure P-1], 22.07.1991 [Annexure P-2], 06.03.1993 [Annexure P-3], the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.03.1993 [Annexure P-4] to the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation on 10.05.1995
[Annexure P-5] but in vain.
2(ii). It is further averred that though the case of the petitioner had been forwarded by the Commandant as well as Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur for being considered for absorption in the Executive Clerical Cadre in Account’s Wing during 1983, 1991 and 1993 but despite service of 30 years benefit of absorption has not been granted to the petitioner, whereas, the private respondents who were junior to the petitioner were absorbed in the Executive Clerical Cadre in Accounts Branch.
2(iii). Feeling aggrieved against the non absorption the petitioner submitted another representation on 22.04.2010 [Annexure P-9] to Director General of Police and had enclosed the Commendation Certificate given for distinguished services vide Annexure P-20 to Annexure P-26. In response to the representation 22.04.2010 [Annexure P-9] the Director General of Police rejected the claim for absorption on 15.05.2010 [Annexure P-10]. In this background, the petitioner has prayed for absorbing him in the Executive Clerical Cadre in the Accounts Branch since 1983.
STAND OF RESPONDENT-STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated on 03.01.2011 of Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh.
3(i). Perusal of Paras 8 and 15 [B] of the Reply- Affidavit indicates that during the year 1982-1983, the petitioner never applied for absorption in
