Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar And Others vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
( 2025:HHC:37090 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.644 of 2024
Decided on: 6th November, 2025.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Kumar and others .....Petitioners
.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited
.....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
of
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr.Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
rt Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
CMP No.26477/2025
The respondent/applicant seeks to place on record office letter dated 21.06.2012 alongwith document appended therewith. Learned counsel for the petitioners/non-applicants pleads no objection.
In view of above, the present application is allowed.
Document is taken on record. The application stands disposed of.
CWP No. 644/2024The petitioners are presently serving as Computer Operators (contract) in the respondent- State Electricity Board Limited. With the grievance that they were wrongly appointed on contract basis; are to be deemed to have been appointed on regular 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 2( 2025:HHC:37090 ) basis from day one of their initial appointment, this writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That the impugned notification/office order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioners were .
entitled for regular job from day one has not been given and instead they have been given Contract appointment. The petitioners were given regular employment from day one.
(ii) That since the petitioners of 2014 Batch have been selected through Subordinate Commission in accordance with the R&P Rule, 2014 of Computer Operator, their contract service be counted for promotion as well as of Seniority as has been decided by this Hon'ble High Court DB in CWP No. 6183 of 2022 decided on 07 December, 2022 in Sushant Singh Negi & others versus Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and rt Others. Copy of judgment dated 07.12.2022 in CWP No. 6183 of 2022 and CWP No. 2004 of 2017 a/w CWP No. 629 of 2018 decided on 03.08.2023 titled as Taj Mohammad and others versus State of H.P & Others.
(iii) That since the selection process of petitioners is according to the R&P Rules, 2012 of Computer Operator and they have been selected to a cadre post, hence, the respondent be directed to make R & P rules for promotion commensuration with their initial scale qua other cadre post."
During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition be treated to have been filed only qua reliefs No. (i) & (ii) above and petitioners be permitted to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of relief No.(iii). The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.
Accordingly, this writ petition has been heard confined to reliefs No.
(i) & (ii). The petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy qua relief No. (iii).
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 3( 2025:HHC:37090 ) Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
2. The Case .
Following facts are not in dispute:-
2(i) On 15.06.2012, respondent-State Electricity Board Ltd.
notified Recruitment and Promotion (R&P), Regulations for the post of of Computer Operator. The notification was issued in exercise of powers under the Electricity Act, 2003 and other enabling provisions.
As per R&P Regulations, cadre of Computer Operator consisted of rt 100 posts classified as Class-III (Non-Gazetted) (Technical Service).
The R & P, Regulations also provided Pay Scale for regular incumbents ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for contract employees were ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for14450/-. Further as per R&P, Regulations, posts of Computer Operators could be filled in either through direct recruitment or on contract basis as under:-
"15. Selection for appointment to the post by recruitment on a regular basis.:
Selection for appointment (Regular) to the post in the case of direct recruitment on regular basis shall be made on the basis of viva-voce test if the Board or other recruiting authority to be authorized/nominated by the Board as the case may be, so consider necessary or expedient by a written test or practical test, the standard/syllabus, etc. of which, will be determined by the Board or by the recruiting authority as the case may be.
15.A. Selection for direct appointment to the post on Contract basis.::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 4
( 2025:HHC:37090 ) Col. No.15-A.
(a) Selection on contract basis shall be made either by the concerned recruiting agency i.e. the HPSSSB or Departmental Selection Committee as the case may be.
.
(b) The Executive Director (Personnel) after obtaining the approval of the Board to fill up the vacant posts on contract basis will place requisition with Recruiting Agency........."
2(ii) On 22.06.2012, 100 posts of Computer Operators were of created and spread unit wise in the pay band-III of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900- 34800+3550 Grade Pay.
2(iii) rt On 21.06.2012, respondent-State Electricity Board sent a requisition to Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board (HPSSSB), Hamirpur on prescribed format i.e. Form SBH-1 for recruitment/ appointment of 100 Computer Operators on contract basis (Annexure R-X). Pursuant thereto, HPSSSB, Hamirpur issued an advertisement on 15.09.2012 inter alia inviting applications for the post of Computer Operators to be filled up on contract basis in the pay band of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay with contractual emoluments as ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for14450/- per month as under:-
(21) HP State 340 Gen(UR(-33, Gen (IRDP/BPL)-08, Electricity Board Gen (WFF) -01, OBC(UR)-12, Limited OBC(IRDP/BPL)-03, ST(UR)-03, Computer Operator (on ST(IRDP/BPL)-01, SC(UR)-16, SC Contract basis) in the (IRDP/BPL)-03. Total=80 Pay Band of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900- Note: The requisition for the post 34800+3550 Grade of Computer Operator, if any Pay. (Contractual received up to 31st December 2012 Amount ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for14450/- per shall also be included in the month) present number of post.::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 5
( 2025:HHC:37090 ) The general instructions No.8 of para-7 of the advertisement provided for execution of contract in respect of the .
candidates selected for appointment to the post being filled up on contract basis.
2(iv) The petitioners' participated in the selection process under advertisement dated 15.09.2012 and emerged successful.
of Appointment orders were issued to them as Computer Operators purely on contract basis on the salary of minimum pay band of rt ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900 +3550 Grade Pay i.e. ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for14450/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioners executed contract with respondent-State Electricity Board as per advertisement in lieu of their appointment as Computer Operators (contract).
Contractual services of the petitioners were regularized on 22.05.2017. The petitioners were confirmed on 18.06.2022 in the entry grade of Computer Operators w.e.f. 17.05.2022.
2(v) More than 13 years after their contractual appointment and a year after their confirmation in service, petitioners filed this writ petition seeking regular appointment from the date they were appointed on contract basis.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since posts of Computer Operators had been created on regular ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) basis in regular pay scale, therefore, the petitioners were required to be appointed not on contract basis but on regular basis from the date of their first appointment i.e. 24.01.2014. Reliance in support of .
his submission was placed upon Arjun Singh and others versus State of H.P and others,2 whereas, learned counsel for the respondents defended contractual appointment of petitioners invoking doctrine of delay, laches & acquiescence and also the of applicable Regulations.
4. Consideration.
rt 4(i) It is not in dispute that respondent -State Electricity Board had created 100 posts of Computer Operators in Pay Band of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. However, it is also proved that R&P, Regulations were also framed by the respondent for filling up of above 100 posts of Computer Operators. The said R&P, Regulations provided two methods for filling up these 100 posts; i) by way of regular appointment and ii) direct recruitment on contract basis. For regular incumbents, pay scale of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay was admissible, whereas, on appointment on contract basis, emoluments of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for14450/- per month were payable.
4(ii) Appointment on contract basis was an acknowledged mode of recruitment under the R&P, Regulations. It is also borne out from the record that respondent- State Electricity Board had opted 2 Civil Appeal No.390 of 2015, decided on 13.01.2015.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 7( 2025:HHC:37090 ) to fill up 100 posts of Computer Operators on contractual basis. A specific requisition was issued in this regard by the respondent to the HPSSSB, Hamirpur on 21.06.2012. The requisition was .
entertained by HPSSSB, Hamirpur and advertisement was accordingly issued on 15.09.2012 inviting applications for 80 posts of Computer Operators to be filled up on contract basis against contractual emoluments of ₹10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay. The emoluments for14450/- per month. The advertisement of also mandated execution of contract by those who were appointed on contract basis pursuant to their selection.
4(iii) rt The petitioners had participated in the advertisement duly conscious of the fact that they had applied for posts being filled up on contract basis. They emerged successful in the selection process and were accordingly appointed on contract basis in the year 2014. The petitioners accepted their contractual appointment without any demur or protest. They also executed corresponding contract with respondent-State Electricity Board. Services of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2017. The petitioners accepted regularization order as well. They were confirmed in service on 18.06.2022 w.e.f. 17.05.2022 in the entry grade of Computer Operators. In the given background of facts, this writ petition instituted on 27.12.2023 indeed suffers from delay, laches and acquiescence. Having participated in the selection process for the posts advertised for being filled up on contract basis, having ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 8 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) accepted their contractual appointment as Computer Operators in the year, 2014, regularization on that basis in the year, 2017 and confirmation on 18.06.2022 in the entry grade of Computer .
Operators w.e.f. 17.05.2022, petitioners' present claim of regular appointment from the date of their contractual appointment is not only stale but is also barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence.
of In Bichitrananda Behera Versus State of Orissa and others3, Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the significance of the rt doctrines of delay & laches and acquiescence in service-related disputes. Hon'ble Court observed that the claimant therein had delayed pursuing his claim for over 12 years despite being aware of the appointment of another person to the same post of Physical Education Trainer (PET). This prolonged inaction was held to amount to acquiescence, which effectively bars the claim because it implies consent through silence or failure to act. Hon'ble Apex Court explained that while laches refers to an unreasonable delay without active consent, both delay and laches serve the important purpose of preventing stale claims that disrupt settled rights and administrative decisions. In service matters, these doctrines were held to play crucial roles as they protect the stability and finality of 3 Civil Appeal No.6664 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16238 of 2017), decided on 11.10.2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 9 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) administrative decisions. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
" 21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passages from certain .
decisions of this Court:
"(A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648:
"To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing of wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the rt exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." ` (emphasis supplied) (B).................
21-23. .................
Acquiescence
24. We have already discussed the relationship between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other.
25. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 10 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied .
agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis."
of (C) Chairman, State Bank of India v M J James, (2022) 2 SCC 301:
36. What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days, etc. as it depends rt upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A right not exercised for a long time is non- existent. Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit the litigants who approach the court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay.
In the present case, challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time. Without satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time. Pertinently, the challenge was primarily on the ground that the respondent was not allowed to be represented by a representative of his choice. The respondent knew that even if he were to succeed on this ground, as has happened in the writ proceedings, fresh inquiry would not be prohibited as finality is not attached unless there is a legal or statutory bar, an aspect which has been also noticed in the impugned judgment. This is highlighted to show the prejudice caused to the appellants by the delayed challenge. We would, subsequently, examine the question of acquiescence and its judicial effect in the context of the present case.
Xxx
38. In Ram Chand v. Union of India [Ram Chand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44] and State of U.P. v. Manohar [State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126] this Court observed that if the statutory authority has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, it cannot justify the same by taking the plea that the person who has been deprived of his rights has not approached the appropriate forum for relief. If a statutory authority ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 11 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) does not pass any orders and thereby fails to comply with the statutory mandate within reasonable time, they normally should not be permitted to take the defence of laches and delay. If at all, in such cases, the delay furnishes a cause of action, which in some cases as elucidated in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 : (2008) 2 .
SCC (L&S) 765] may be continuing cause of action.
The State being a virtuous litigant should meet the genuine claims and not deny them for want of action on their part. However, this general principle would not apply when, on consideration of the facts, the court concludes that the respondent had abandoned his rights, which may be either express or implied from his conduct. Abandonment implies intentional act to acknowledge, as has been of held in para 6 of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409 : 1979 SCC (Tax) 144] Applying this principle of acquiescence to the precept of delay and laches, this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant rt Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] after referring to several judgments, has accepted the following elucidation in Halsbury's Laws of England : (Jaswant Singh case [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] , SCC pp. 470-71, paras 1213).
"12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, Para 911, p. 395 as follows:
'In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are:
(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and
(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.
Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.'
13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 12 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow in granting the relief to the .
incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussions on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are rt guilty of waiver and acquiescence?"
39. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify distinction between "acquiescence" and "delay and laches". Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. [See Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt., (2015) 15 SCC 1 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 149. Also, see Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohanta v. Ram Charan Das, 1925 SCC OnLine Cal 30 : AIR 1925 Cal 1107] In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, [See Vidyavathi Kapoor Trust v. CIT, 1991 SCC OnLine Kar 331 : (1992) 194 ITR 584] which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. [See Krishan Dev v. Ram Piari, 1964 SCC OnLine HP 5 : AIR 1964 HP 34] Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance. [See "Introduction", U.N. Mitra, Tagore Law Lectures
-- Law of Limitation and Prescription, Vol. I, 14th Edn., 2016.] However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence.
40. Laches unlike limitation is flexible. However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 13 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not .
to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. [See Vidyavathi Kapoor Trust v. CIT, 1991 SCC OnLine Kar 331 :
(1992) 194 ITR 584] Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal.
Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel of bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation."
4(iv) Ratio of above decision applies to the facts of instant rt case. Reliance placed by the petitioners upon Arjun Singh2 is misplaced. In the said case, the requisition was sent for making appointments on regular basis but appointments were made on contractual basis. Hon'ble Apex Court in the given facts & circumstances of the case directed for providing regular appointments to the incumbents from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis. Whereas in the instant case, the requisition sent by respondent-State Electricity Board to the HPSSSB, Hamirpur was to fill up posts of Computer Operators on contract basis. Filling up of posts on Contract basis was a permissible mode under the R&P, Regulations. Consequent advertisement issued by HPSSSB, Hamirpur was also for filling up the posts of Computer Operators on contract basis. Petitioners' were duly conscious of the fact that they were applying for the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS 14 ( 2025:HHC:37090 ) posts of Computer Operators being filled up on contract basis. The appointment orders of the petitioners were accordingly issued to them on contract basis. Petitioner had also executed corresponding .
contract with the respondent. Filling up of posts of Computer Operators on contract basis was in consonance with provision of R&P, Regulations which provided for filling up posts either by way of direct recruitment or by way of direct recruitment on contract basis.
of Thus the requisition sent by the respondent-State Electricity Board was in terms of the R&P, Regulations and it was accordingly, acted rt upon by HPSSSB, Hamirpur. Selection and appointment of the petitioners on contract basis was in accordance with lawful process undertaken by the respondent & duly comprehended as such by the petitioners.
5. Accordingly, the present petition claiming regular appointment from date of initial appointment on contract basis fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
November 06, 2025 Judge
yogesh
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 20:20:34 :::CIS