Dismissed¶33

Pritam Chand v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC15 May 2025CWP/4822/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay protection / salary protection on take-over of services; Clause B(3) of Policy-Guidelines dated 20.07.2011; take-over of services under office order dated 21.07.2014; consequential monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.04.2012; execution petition disposed as fully satisfied (Ex. Pet. No. 247/2022); acquiescence; estoppel; stale claim; unexplained delay and laches; failure to seek timely remedy; non-assailed order; CWP dismissed; Himachal Pradesh; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; Kewal Kumar (CWP No. 6210/2013) referred.

What did the court decide?

For the reasons stated (acceptance of take-over under order dated 21.07.2014, confinement of the execution petition to non-release of monetary benefits, and non-assailing of that order), the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be allowed. ¶33

Pritam Chand Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions that respondent No.3 protect his salary in terms of Clause B(3) of the Policy guidelines dated 20.07.2011 at the time of take-over of his services. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Having accepted the taking over of his services under order dated 21.07.2014 and raised only the surviving grievance of non-release of monetary benefits in the execution petition (which was disposed of as fully satisfied), the petitioner is estopped from raising the stale issue of pay protection; principles of acquiescence and estoppel come in his way.

¶32

Key takeaways

The petition otherwise also fails as suffering from unexplained delay and laches, the petitioner having not sought appropriate remedy at the relevant time.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 4822/2025, decided 15.05.2025, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) seeking directions for protection of the petitioner's salary in terms of Clause B(3) of the Policy guidelines dated 20.07.2011 at the time of take-over of his services — DISMISSED. The petitioner's services had already been taken over under office order dated 21.07.2014 issued in compliance of his earlier writ petition (CWP No. 5130/2013, decided 24.05.2014, rendered in view of Kewal Kumar, CWP No. 6210/2013), with consequential monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.04.2012; the order dated 21.07.2014 was never assailed, and his execution petition (Ex. Pet. No. 247/2022) was disposed of on 08.09.2023 as fully satisfied upon sanction of Rs. 87,42,588/-. Held: the petitioner, having accepted the take-over and confined himself to the monetary-benefit grievance, is estopped from raising the stale issue of pay protection; principles of acquiescence and estoppel apply, and the petition also suffers from unexplained delay and laches. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 4822/2025

¶3

Decided on: 15.05.2025

¶4

Pritam Chand …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶7

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶12

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate

¶13

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

2. Petitioner seeks directions to the respondents for protecting his salary in view of guidelines issued by the respondents on 20.07.2011.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel and gone through the case file. 3(i) Petitioner had instituted Pritam Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.² The writ petition was decided on 24.05.2014 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in

¶16

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

2CWP No. 5130/2013 decided on 24.05.2014

¶18

¶19

view of principles laid down in Kewal Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.³ In Kewal Kumar’s³ case, the grievance of the petitioners was that their services were not being taken over by the respondents despite they having given an option in terms of Policy/Guidelines dated 20.07.2011. The Court allowed the said writ petition (Kewal Kumar) with following directions:-

¶20

“5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take over services of the petitioners as per guideline (B) dated 20.7.2011, within a period of eight weeks from today, with all the consequential benefits with effect from 1.4.2012. The issue of EPF is left open to be resolved between State Government and respondent No.3 Management independently. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.”

¶21

3(ii) The respondents set out to implement the decision rendered in Pritam Chand² case and issued office order on 21.07.2014. Petitioner’s services were taken over under the Policy/Guidelines dated 20.07.2011 from the date of his joining. Consequential monetary benefits were also allowed to him w.e.f. 01.04.2012.

¶22

3(iii) It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied with the office order dated 21.07.2014, he therefore, instituted Pritam Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.⁴ with the grievance that consequential benefits flowing to him under order dated 21.07.2014 had not been

¶23

3CWP No. 6210/2013 decided on 28.02.2014

¶24

4 Ex. Pet. No. 247/2022 decided on 08.09.2023

¶25

¶26

released in his favour. The said petition was disposed of on 08.09.2023, as under:-

¶27

“While placing on record, copy of communication dated 8.9.2023 issued under the signatures of Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that additionality of budget and expenditure sanction amounting to Rs.87,42,588/- stands sanctioned vide letter dated 5.9.2023 and thereafter, directions have been issued to Deputy Director Higher Education Kangra to release due and admissible amount in bank account of the petitioner.

¶28

2. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as documents annexed therewith, which are ordered to be taken on record, this court finds that the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with, as such nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings, which are accordingly closed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived, in case, the amount is not deposited in terms of aforesaid communication.”

¶29

3(iv) After more than a year from the date of disposal of the execution petition, the petitioner has instituted this fresh writ petition now seeking the relief that respondent No.3 was required to protect his salary in terms of Clause B(3) of the Policy guidelines issued by the respondents on 20.07.2011.

¶30

4. In case, the petitioner had any grievance with respect to the implementation of the decision in Pritam Chand ’s case, he was required to raise the same at the relevant time. In case, petitioner desired his services to be taken over in a particular manner, he was required to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his

¶31

¶32

grievances at the appropriate time. The respondents had taken over the services of the petitioner under order dated 21.07.2014. Petitioner’s only grievance against that order as projected by him in the aforesaid execution petition was that consequential monetary benefits had not been released to him on account of taking over of his services. No relief in respect of protection of his pay was ever raised by him. The order dated 21.07.2014 under which petitioner’s services were taken over was not assailed by him at any stage. The petitioner had accepted taking over his services by the respondents in terms of order dated 21.07.2014 and had raised the surviving grievances in his execution petition only with respect to non release of monetary benefits due to him in terms of the aforesaid order. The Execution Petition No. 247/2022 was also disposed of as fully satisfied. Petitioner is now estopped from raising a stale issue that his services were required to be taken over by protecting the salary previously drawn by him. Principles of acquiescence and estoppel will come in the way of the petitioner. Further more, the petition otherwise also suffers from unexplained delay and laches in part of the petitioner for not seeking appropriate remedy at the relevant time.

¶33

For the aforesaid reasons, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be allowed to him. Accordingly the petition is

¶34

¶35

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

¶36

stand disposed of.

¶37

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶38

15^th May, 2025(rohit)