Employer Cannot Cite Delay To Deny Employee's Claim When It Failed To Respond To Representation For Years: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Delhi, challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed the withdrawal of a retired employee's higher grade pay and directed the institute to reconsider his claim for financial upgradation. The Court held that the delay was caused by NIT's failure to respond to the employee's representation.A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that : “It is not disputed that filing of the representation in the year 2018 had never been responded to by the present appellant and only when the rejection order was passed on 28.01.2022, the writ petition came to be filed in July 2022… Having delayed to respond to the representation, now they cannot turn around and take the stance that there was a delay on the part of the employee.”The respondent Raj Kamal Verma, a former employee of NIT Delhi challenged the withdrawal of his higher grade pay. Thereafter, the withdrawal order was quashed by the Single Judge and directed NIT to reconsider his claim as per law. NIT Delhi contended that the Himachal Pradesh High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the employee had served and retired in Delhi. They further contended that merely because the receipt received the impugned order by the employee at his residence in Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh it did not give jurisdiction. However, the employee argued that as he had received the communication at his home in District Hamirpur, part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Rejecting NIT's contention, the Court remarked that as the communication was sent to the employee at his home a part of the cause of action arose in Himachal Pradesh. Further the Court reiterated that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the cause of action if it arises wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of the High Court would give Court the jurisdiction. Thus, the Court upheld the Single Judge's order. Case Name: National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others Case No.: LPA No.05 of 2025Date of Decision: 28.10.2025For the appellant: Mr.Kartik Kaushal, Advocate.For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2.Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Employer Cannot Cite Delay To Deny Employee's Claim When It Failed To Respond To Representation For Years: HP High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags