IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4975 of 2008. Date of Decision: 10.8.2010 Kamla Devi …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mrs.Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The husband of the petitioner Sant Ram joined the Indian Army on 13.9.1963. He was discharged from the army on 13.10.1970. After retirement he was employed as Chowkidar in I&PH Department on 21.2.1973 as general candidate. He was later promoted as peon vide order dated 29.7.1977. Sant Ram unfortunately expired in the year 1986. The petitioner, who is wife of Sant Ram, made a representation on 24.11.1989, three years after the death of her husband, that the pay of her husband should have been fixed by giving him benefit of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in H.P. State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. She claimed that 2 this benefit should have been granted to her husband and now the amount be calculated and paid to her. Thereafter, some papers were asked for from her and she made another representation on 4.4.1990. She made another representation on 29.3.1996 and the last representation was made on 10.4.1996. Since her grievance was not redressed she filed the present petition which was instituted on 3.4.1998. In the petition an allegation has been made that the husband of the petitioner had also made a representation in this behalf and copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure A-3 to the petition. The same is dated 6th November, 1971. The stand of the respondents is that no representation was made by the husband and therefore the claim made by the wife is time barred and cannot be allowed at this stage. The State has denied that the representation Annexure A-3 was received by it. In fact a perusal of this representation shows that this is a document manufactured at a later stage. As pointed out above the representation on behalf of the husband is alleged to be dated 6th November, 1971. In this representation it has been stated that the petitioner has been working for two years on daily-wage basis as Chowkidar and may be appointed as Peon in the office and his service in the army be counted. Even as per the petitioner, her husband was appointed as Chowkidar only on 21.2.1973 and was promoted as peon on 29.7.1977. 3 Therefore, the question of making a representation on 6th November, 1971 much prior to his appointment as Chowkidar did not arise. The deceased slept over his rights and did not claim enhancement of pay from the date of his appointment till his death in the year 1986. Even thereafter, the wife though she did made the first representation in this behalf in the year 1989 waited for 9 more years to file the writ petition, which was filed 12 years after the death of her husband. Her claim was therefore miserably barred by law of limitation and the principle of delay and laches. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. August 10, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.