IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 9115 of 2008 Decided on: August 9, 2011 Trilok Chand ..Petitioner Versus HPSEB and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was engaged as a daily-waged worker in the year 1976 on the establishment of respondent No.1, i.e. H.P. State Electricity Board. He was made a casual worker in the year 1984. In the year 1987, some vacancies of T-Mates were available in the office of respondent No.1 for which requisitions were sent to Employment Exchanges. Petitioner’s name was sponsored by one of the Exchanges. He was issued an interview letter dated 11.5.1987, copy Annexure A-3, which stated that the post was in the pay- scale of `300-430. Petitioner appeared for the interview and on the basis of his performance in the interview, he was Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É appointed vide letter dated 10.7.1987, copy Annexure A-4. However, his appointment was not in regular pay scale, but on daily wages at the rate of `15.25 per day. He accepted the appointment and joined. Fresh interviews were held on 28.9.1989 and the petitioner was then appointed in regular pay-scale of `750-1350 as T-Mate, vide appointment order dated 16.1.1990, copy Annexure A-5. 3. Petitioner’s grievance in the present matter is that he having been interviewed for appointment as T-Mate in the pay scale of `300-430, as per interview call letter, copy Annexure A-3, ought to have been appointed in the said pay-scale instead of having been appointed on daily wages, vide letter, copy Annexure A-4. 4. Petition was filed in the year 2002 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 1987 or in any case in 1989, when he was re-interviewed and appointed in the pay-scale. He having taken no action for about 15 years after his appointment, vide letter Annexure A-4, and also having accepted the said appointment without any protest or demur, cannot be heard to say, at this belated stage, that he ought to have been appointed in regular pay scale. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. August 9, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.