Dismissed¶25

Ranbir Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Delay and laches – Letters Patent Appeal by retired HRTC employee

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Mar 2025LPA/72/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HHC 2025 LPA 72 delay laches retired employee compensatory leave Sunday rests Section 26 Motor Transport Workers Act 1961 Himachal Road Transport Corporation limitation fence sitter writ petition 1473 of 2024 retirement 31.03.2019 Pandora’s Box civil suit barred G.S. Sandhawalia Chief Justice Ranjan Sharma Judge appeal dismissed 13.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

The view of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on delay and laches does not suffer from any infirmity; any contrary view would amount to opening a Pandora’s Box of all retired employees seeking benefits they did not claim during service. ¶17

Ranbir Singh Vs Hrtc and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant’s claim for 172 days’ compensatory leave [Sunday rests] under Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, pursued by writ petition filed in 2024, approximately five years after his retirement on 31.03.2019, is barred by delay and laches.

¶16

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

An employee who was a fence sitter, chose not to agitate his grievances during his period of service and approached the Court almost five years after the date of retirement is entitled to no indulgence.

¶22

Key takeaways

Granting such indulgence would have far-reaching consequences: retired employees would stake claims already barred by limitation, claims for which even a civil suit could not have been filed for recovery of the amount.ratio¶23
Settled principles of law of limitation bar the remedy of a person who is not vigilant; there is no plausible reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity.ratio¶24
The appellant’s reliance on Annexure A/1 (instructions dated 15.03.2023 regarding exhaustion/liquidation of compensatory leave before retirement) does not strengthen his case, as certain writ petitions are pending before the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delay and laches — Letters Patent Appeal by retired HRTC employee — claim of 172 days’ compensatory leave [Sunday rests] for work done under Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, with interest — employee retired on 31.03.2019, writ petition filed only in 2024 — learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition on ground of delay and laches — Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Ranjan Sharma, J) upheld dismissal: a fence-sitting employee who did not agitate his grievance during service and approached the Court almost five years after retirement deserves no indulgence; entertaining such claims would open a Pandora’s Box of retired employees staking limitation-barred claims for which even a civil suit could not have been filed; settled principles of limitation bar the remedy of the non-vigilant; reliance on Annexure A/1 (instructions dated 15.03.2023) did not aid the appellant — appeal dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶1

2025:HHC:6315

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No.72 of 2025 Decided on:13.03.2025

¶4

__________________________________________________________ Ranbir Singh ...Appellant Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others. ….Respondents

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?.

¶7

For the appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶9

Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal

¶10

is to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 10.12.2024, in Civil Writ Petition No.1473 of 2024, titled as Ranbir Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, filed by the present appellant.

¶11

2. Accordingly, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches by noticing that the claim as such of 172 days’ compensatory leave [Sunday rests] for work done in terms of Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, with interest was

¶12

the claim.

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

2025:HHC:6315

¶16

3. Learned Single Judge has further noticed that retirement of the employee was on 31.03.2019 and the writ petition was only filed in the year 2024. It is further accordingly held that even a period of 3 years had expired and therefore, the writ petition as such was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶17

4. We are of the considered opinion that the view of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity as any contrary view would amount to opening a Pandora’s Box of all retired employees, who would start seeking the benefit which they have not claimed during their service period.

¶18

5. The reliance on Annexure A/1 now placed on records also does not strengthen further case of the appellant in terms of instructions dated 15.03.2023 as certain writ petitions are pending before this Court and the directions are that employees who are on the verge of retirement and have compensatory leave in their credit, be got exhausted/liquidated first before the retirement of such employee’s and that the Corporation intends to pay the due’s as per the act.

¶19

6. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that once an employee as such was a fence sitter and

¶20

¶21

2025:HHC:6315

¶22

chose not to agitate for his grievances during his period of service and has approached this Court after a period of almost five years after the date of retirement, no indulgence can be granted to such a litigant.

¶23

7. Even otherwise, it would have far reaching consequences, if such, an indulgence is granted it shall lead to all retired employees staking their claims even though their claims had been barred by limitation and even a civil suit could not have been filed for recovery of the amount.

¶24

8. Settled principles of law of limitation bar the remedy if a person is not vigilant enough. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by learned Single Judge, as it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶25

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶26

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶27

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶28

March 13, 2025

¶29

[Bhardwaj/himani]

Ranbir Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kashyap Vs Hpsidc

Union of India and Others Vs Ex Hav Subhash Chand

The State of Hp and Others Vs Hari Dev Verma and Others

Chaudhary Srwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Vs Rajinder Kumar and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Het Ram

Rahul Negi Asnd Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.