The petitioner challenged the delayed grant of Advanced Career Promotion (ACP) and sought to quash relevant scheme clauses. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as barred by delay and latches, holding that the cause of action accrued in 2009 and could not be revived by a belated representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:10559-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11057 of 2024 Decided on : 04.11.2024
Sanjeev Sharma
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Parth 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) That impugned clause g, h and i of the ACP Scheme dated 09.08.2012 Annexure P-2 and cut-
off date may kindly be quashed and set-aside being ultra vires and unconstitutional.
ii) That impugned letter dated 08.05.2023 may
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2024:HHC:10559-DB
kindly be quashed and set aside.
Iii) That respondent may kindly be directed to
grant the petitioner of 4 years i.e. 06.01.2007 as per Scheme dated 09.08.2012, with all consequential benefits and re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly.
iv) Or in alternative, step up in term Rule 22 of the FR rules may kindly be granted to the petitioner so that pay anomaly can be removed.”
2 . The case of the petitioner is that the ACP, which the
petitioner was entitled to, in the year 2007, was granted to him in the year 2009. It is primarily this issue, for the redressal whereof the petitioner has approached this Court.
3
2024:HHC:10559-DB
that the pay of his junior was more than him.
4
2024:HHC:10559-DB
the said cause, either within the period of limitation before the learned Administrative Tribunal or within some reasonable period before the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same belatedly.
the considered view that the same is also hit by delays and latches because the learned counsel for the petitioner could not justify in the course of his submissions that what took the petitioner 12 years to realize that certain clauses of the policy were ultra vires when it is not the case of the petitioner that these clauses have recently curtailed certain rights of his.
5
2024:HHC:10559-DB
petition is dismissed on the ground of delays and latches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
November 04, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the grant of ACP from 2009 instead of 2007 is maintainable given the delay of approximately 15 years?
Sanjeev Sharma
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
