SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Chander Lal Negi  - Petitioner 
Versus
State of H.P. and another - Respondents
CWP No.18760 of 2025
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General

Belated service claims for pay increments rejected due to unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence; prolonged inaction implies consent, barring relief to uphold administrative finality.

Headnote:(A) Service law - Annual increment - Claim for increment due on lower post before joining promotional post - Petitioner joined promotional post before due date despite oral request to defer, no written application placed - Pay fixed on promotion under relevant rules - Retirement shortly after - First representation after 7 years, writ petition after 17 years from cause of action - Unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence bar consideration of claim - Belated service claims rejected to maintain finality of administrative decisions and settled rights. (Paras 3, 4, 4(i), 4(ii))

(B) Delay, laches and acquiescence - Delay involves unreasonable inaction; laches imports passivity; acquiescence implies tacit consent or active assent through prolonged silence - Distinguish laches from acquiescence based on equitable considerations - Both doctrines prevent stale claims disrupting stability in service matters. (Paras 4(ii), 4(iii))

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought mandamus for annual increment earned on lower post due on specified date or proportionate amount, claiming oral request to join promotion after that date was not honoured. Joined promotional post earlier. Pay re-fixed on promotion. Representations made belatedly post-retirement; writ filed after 17 years.

Findings of Court:
No merit in claim; suffers from unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence; cannot direct grant of increment at this stage.

Issues: Entitlement to annual increment on lower post despite premature joining of promotion; applicability of delay, laches and acquiescence to bar relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Absent written request or timely grievance, prolonged inaction post-joining and retirement constitutes acquiescence; delay defeats equity in service claims under writ jurisdiction, preventing re-agitation of settled pay fixation.

Result: Writ petition dismissed along with pending applications.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's service history and pre-promotion increment claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

Petitioner, aged 75 years, has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-

“i). That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant
one annual increment to the petitioner which was earned by the petitioner on the post of Tehsildar and
was due on 1.11.2007.

ii). That in the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to grant him the proportionate amount of
increment earned by the petitioner until his joining the promotional post on 18.10.2007.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and onsidered the case file.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that:-

3(i). He was initially appointed as Patwari and promoted as Tehsildar on ad-hoc basis on 20.06.1997. Petitioner’s services were regularized as Tehsildar on 01.03.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.7000-10980/-. Consequent upon regularization, petitioner’s pay was re-fixed from the date of joining as Tehsildar on ad-hoc basis by notionally adding one increment in the lower pay scale of Naib Tehsildar as per Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1) and granting one promotional increment on promotion as Tehsildar.

3(ii). As on 01.11.1997, after getting two increments, petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs.7880/-. Petitioner’s pay was Rs.9750/- in the year 2005.

3(iii). Petitioner remained posted on the same post of Tehsildar for about 8-9 years, therefore, vide order dated 19.09.2006, he was granted benefit of one proficiency increment after completion of 08 years of service under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. This proficiency increment was granted to the petitioner on 07.07.2005 and his pay reached at Rs.10025/-. After the grant of annual increments on 01.11.2005 and 01.11.2006, petitioner’s pay reached at Rs.10300/- and 10640/-, respectively.

3(iv). On 06.10.2007, petitioner was promoted as District Revenue Officer (DRO) in the pay scale of Rs.7220- 11660/- on ad-hoc basis. According to the petitioner, ‘he orally requested his controlling officer that he may be allowed to join the promotional post after 01.11.2007 so that he could get due annual increment on the post of Tehsildar’. Nonetheless, petitioner joined the promotional post of DRO before 01.11.2007, i.e. on 18.10.2007.

3(v). After joining as DRO on 18.10.2007, petitioner requested respondent No.2 to get his pay fixed as per F.R. 22 by granting him annual increment, which was due on 01.11.2007. Petitioner statedly exercised his option on 28.11.2008.

3(vi). Consequent upon the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner as DRO (Class-I Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs.7220-11660/-, his pay was fixed under F.R. 22 as on 18.10.2007 at Rs.10980/- by giving one promotional increment and the next date of increment was fixed as 01.10.2008 vide order dated 04.02.2008.

4. Consideration

Petitioner’s grievance stems from the fact that he actually joined the promotional post of DRO on 18.10.2007 and was not allowed to join the promotional post after 01.11.2007, thereby denying him annual increment on the post of Tehsildar on 01.11.2007. Petitioner’s grievance as canvassed by his learned counsel is that the annual increment earned by the petitioner on the lower post of Tehsildar, which was due on 01.11.2007, was not granted to him on account of his joining the promotional post on 18.10.2007.

4(i). Admittedly, the petitioner did not make any written request to the respondents for letting him join the promotional post of DRO after 01.11.2007. Petitioner had himself joined as DRO on 18.10.2007, i.e. before earning increment on the post of Tehsildar. It is his pleaded case that he had only orally requested his controlling officer to let him join the promotional post after 01.11.2007 to enable him to earn the annual increment on the post of Tehsildar. No such representation concerning present grievance of the petitioner ever made to


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top