Dismissed¶35

Tej Pal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Jul 2026CWPOA/939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), CWPOA No. 939 of 2019, decided 16.07.2026 by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel (Oral). Themes: belated/delayed service matter claim; non-adherence to 10-point promotion roster and 10% quota for Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with graduate qualification; retrospective promotion as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) w.e.f. December 1997; quashing of departmental letter dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure P-9) rejecting representation; crystallization of co-promotees' rights (promotions 1997–2001 and 2001–2009); seniority lists attained finality; reliance on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; rejection upheld on ground of delay; petition dismissed. Respondent No.3 ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed and pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶35

Tej Pal Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; petition dismissed and pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to adhere to the 10-point roster for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) against the 10% quota fixed for Junior Engineer (Mechanical) having graduate qualification, and whether the petitioner should be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) w.e.f. the due date, i.e., December 1997, with all consequential benefits. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation; if the roster for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was not correctly followed in 1997, the petitioner should have approached the Court or the authorities within some reasonable time, which he admittedly did not do.

¶26

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to approach the Court or the authorities within any reasonable time after the alleged failure to follow the roster in 1997.ratio¶28
Having gained promotions in 2001 and 2009, and with many other incumbents meanwhile promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer and seniority lists issued which had attained finality, the petitioner's representation was rightly rejected by the authority on the ground of delay.ratio¶30
Applying the principle of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 that belated service petitions affecting individuals' rights are not to be entertained: as Junior Engineers were promoted between 1997 and 2001 and Assistant Engineers between 2001 and 2009 before the petitioner gained his promotions, their rights stood crystallized and the settled position could not be unsettled by entertaining the petitioner's belated, delayed representation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter — retrospective promotion claim raised about ten years late. The petitioner, promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in 2001 and as Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in 2009, prayed for direction to adhere to the 10-point roster for promotion to Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) against the 10% quota fixed for graduate Junior Engineers (Mechanical), for promotion w.e.f. December 1997 with consequential benefits, and for quashing of Annexure P-9 (letter dated 27.05.2011) rejecting his representation. Held, the impugned order contains no infirmity: the petitioner ought to have approached the Court or the authorities within a reasonable time and admittedly did not; by the time he raked up the grievance, many other incumbents had been promoted (Junior Engineers between 1997–2001, Assistant Engineers between 2001–2009) and seniority lists had attained finality. Reliance placed on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648: crystallized rights of other promotees and the settled position could not be unsettled by entertaining a belated and delayed representation. Representation rightly rejected on the ground of delay; petition dismissed, pending applications disposed of.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:29081 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No. 939 of 2019. Decided on : 16th July , 2026.

¶4

Tej Pal ...Petitioner.

¶5

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 ex-parte. Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶9

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral).

¶10

By way of present petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,

¶11

prayed for following reliefs:-

¶12

“I) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to adhere the 10 point roster for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) against 10% quota fixed for Junior Engineer (Mechanical) having graduate qualification and the petitioner may very kindly be consider for promotion as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) w.e.f. due date i.e. December, 1997 with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

¶13

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

¶14

…2… ( 2026:HHC:29081 )

¶15

ii) That the letter dated 27.05.2011 vide which the representation/claim of the petitioner has been reje3cted by respondent No.1 at Annexure P-9 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-9, in terms

¶17

whereof, his representation, was rejected. Annexure P-9 reads as

¶18

under:-

¶19

“I am directed to refer to your letter No. PWE-141-7(Mech.)/ESII/- 27 dated 2.4.11 on the subject cited above and to intimate that representation of Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Shimla-12 has been examined and found that the applicant was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mech.) during the year, 2001 and thereafter got another promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) during the year 2009. After a period of 10 years, he has submitted his objection that roster was not followed during the year, 1997 and requested to promote him w.e.f. 12/1997. At this belated stage it is not appropriate to consider his request. Moreover, in number of cases the Hon’ble Court has held that the cases of seniority and promotions should not be reopened after a reasonable time. Also administratively neither it is rational nor legally sustainable to unsettle the settled positive over a period of 10 years, hence, his representation is rejected.”

¶20

It is apparently borne out from the impugned order that

¶21

the petitioner, who at the time of filing the representation, was

¶22

…3… ( 2026:HHC:29081 )

¶23

serving as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical), raked up an issue about his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) by stating therein that in the year 1997, the roster to be followed for promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) was not properly followed, which resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1997.

¶24

It is also apparent from the impugned order that the

¶25

petitioner was promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the year 2001 and thereafter against the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the year 2009. It was after 10 years that he submitted his objections that the roster was not followed in the year 1997. In this background, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents.

¶26

This Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. If, according to the petitioner, the roster with regard to the promotion to the post Assistant Engineer was not correctly followed in the year 1997, then the petitioner should have approached the Court within some reasonable time or

¶27

…4… ( 2026:HHC:29081 )

¶28

he should have approached the authorities within some reasonable time. Admittedly, he did not do so.

¶29

He was conferred promotion against the post of

¶30

Assistant Engineer in the year 2001, then also he did not rake up the issue of his alleged late promotion. Not only this, thereafter in the year 2009, the petitioner was promoted against the post of Executive Engineer and after he had gained these two promotions, subsequently, he raked up an issue of the alleged denial of promotion to him against the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1997. As, in the meanwhile, many other incumbents stood promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer and seniority lists were issued, which had attained finality, the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the authority on the ground of delay.

¶31

In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Ors. versus Tarsem Singh, (2008)8 SCC 648 while dealing with the issue of belated service matter petitions has been pleased to

¶32

observe that in the matters where the rights of individuals are

¶33

…5… ( 2026:HHC:29081 )

¶34

affected, then belated service petitions are not to be entertained by the Court. Herein, as admittedly Junior Engineers were promoted in between 1997 to 2001 against the post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter in between 2001 to 2009 Assistant Engineers against the post of Executive Engineer, before the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, their rights stood crystallized in the meanwhile and the settled position could not have been unsettled by entertaining a belated and a delayed representation filed by the petitioner.

¶35

In light of above discussions, as this Court does not find any illegality in the order under challenge, as such, this petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶37

16^th July, 2026. (jai)

Tej Pal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Pal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachna Garg Vs the State of Hp and Others

Arun Choudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manjeet Kumar Vs the State of Hp

Joginder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Hp

Parkash Chand Vs the State of Hp