IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 2008/2008 Decided on:16.4.2009 Veena Rani Gupta. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. For respondent No.3: Nemo. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner submitted representation for allocation from the State of Punjab to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The same stood accepted. This was done by the Central Government vide notification No. 22/48/68-SR(8) (1) dated 31.8.1968. She was to be relieved of her duties after 23.10.1968 as per Annexure A-1 dated 5.10.1968. The last pay certificate and service book of the petitioner were required to be forwarded to the authorities concerned. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? no. 2 Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has submitted that after the issuance of Annexure A-1 dated 5.10.1968, the petitioner came to submit her joining in the State of Himachal Pradesh, however, the same was not accepted for the reason that she was not relieved by the State of Punjab. He has further argued that the petitioner was required to be offered posting orders pursuant to order dated 5.10.1968. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner could not be issued posting orders since she was not relieved by the State of Punjab. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in fact was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh as per letter dated 5.10.1968. She was to be relieved by the Chief Medical officer, Ferozpur after completing the codal formalities. It appears from the record that she was not relieved and in the absence of relieving order she could not be offered posting orders in the State of Himachal Pradesh. She made representation for the first time on 12.10.1982 for appointment as Female Health Worker. She was advised to get her name sponsored from the Employment Exchange vide letter dated 27.1.1984. She was informed by the Director Health Services on 24.3.1986 that she could not be appointed since she had become over age. She had also made representation to the office of the Prime Minister. The State Government was directed to do the needful on 7.11.1988. The present petition was filed in the year 1992. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner in the year 1968. She has approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of her grievance after a lapse of 24 years. The petition suffers from delay and laches. It is reiterated that since the petitioner was not relieved, she could 3 not be offered posting orders. The present petition is highly belated and the inordinate delay has not been explained satisfactorily. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 16.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*