Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pritam Chand vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 16 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Decided on: 15.05.2025
Pritam Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Petitioner seeks directions to the respondents for
protecting his salary in view of guidelines issued by the respondents
on 20.07.2011.
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
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
CWP No. 5130/2013 decided on 24.05.2014
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:-
"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."
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.
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
CWP No. 6210/2013 decided on 28.02.2014
Ex. Pet. No. 247/2022 decided on 08.09.2023
released in his favour. The said petition was disposed of on
08.09.2023, as under:-
"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.
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."
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.
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
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.
For the aforesaid reasons, the relief prayed for by the
petitioner cannot be allowed to him. Accordingly the petition is
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
15th May, 2025(rohit)
