IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T)No.:7510 of 2008. Reserved on: 21.4.2009. Decided on: 11.05.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Kishori Lal … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. _________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner joined in the Indian Army on 25.1.1963. He has served the Army for twenty four years and seven days. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Operation Theatre Assistant. He was appointed as Operation Theatre Assistant vide order dated 18.5.1987. He submitted an application to the Chief Medical Officer, Solan seeking permission to give his option. The Chief Medical Officer, Solan forwarded the application to respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed against a general category i.e. unreserved post. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that as per instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 23.5.1975 his client should have been given an option to accept a reserved vacancy even if it occurred subsequent to his appointment. He then contended that one Shri Mohan Singh was appointed against the reserved post meant for ex-service man. According to him, he was to be offered this post reserved for ex- service man as per instructions dated 23.5.1975. He has also relied upon order dated 30.5.1997 passed in O.A. No. 1206 of 1996. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the present petition suffers from delay and laches. According to him, the petitioner has slept over his rights from 1987 and he has made representation for the first time in the year 1997 after the decision in O.A. No. 1206 of 1996. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was appointed against unreserved post in the year 1987. He has accepted the same and joined his duties vide office order dated 18.5.1987. He has submitted application after four years seeking his option in the year 1991. The same was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 in the month of April, 1991. It appears that the original application bearing No. 1206 of 1996 preferred by one Shri Kehar Chand was decided by the learned Tribunal on 20.5.1997. The petitioner has preferred the representation for the first time in the year 1997. It was rejected by the competent authority on 29.1.2000. 3 It is true that the option should have been given to the petitioner as per instructions dated 23.5.1975 to accept the reserved vacancy even if it had occurred subsequent to his appointment. In case the petitioner’s option was not sought for, it was incumbent upon him to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities at the time of his appointment. He did not agitate the matter immediately on his appointment and for the first time, he approached the authorities for giving option in the year 1991. Thereafter, he has remained silent till 1997 when the original application preferred by one Shri Kehar Chand was allowed by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 30.5.1997. His representation was rejected on 29.1.2000. He has slept over his rights from 1987 to 2000. In case, he was aggrieved by in-action on the part of the respondents to seek his option, he should have immediately taken the steps for redressal of his grievance. In case, he had been vigilant in pursuing his remedy, he could get the benefit of instructions dated 23.5.1975. One Shri Mohan Singh was appointed against the post reserved for ex-service man as mentioned in the rejoinder. Shri Mohan Singh was appointed on 6.12.1988 and it cannot be presumed that the petitioner came to know about it in the year 1997. The cause of action had arisen immediately on his first appointment on 18.5.1987 and when Shri Mohan Singh was appointed on 6.12.1988. He has filed the present petition in the year 2000. Accordingly, in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable period after the cause of action has accrued to him and in these circumstances, the respondents cannot be faulted in 4 any manner of not seeking petitioner’s option. This Court will not unsettle the settled things after the appointment of Shri Mohan Singh on 6.12.1988. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 11, 2009. (cr)