` IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.484 of 2025 in LPA No.324 of 2025 a/w CMP(M) No.467 of 2025 in LPA No.325 of 2025 and CMP(M) No.469 of 2025 in LPA No.326 of 2025 Decided on: 26.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ LPA No.324 of 2025 The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Dr. Virender Pathak & Anr. ...Respondents LPA No.325 of 2025 The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Sarvesh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents LPA No.326 of 2025 The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Asha Devi & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the applicants/ Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional appellants: Advocate General, in all the appeals. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present set of appeals, which are patently barred by limitation are directed against the orders of learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.1509 of 2019, titled as Dr. Sarvesh Kumar and Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. along with CWPOA No.1515 of 2019, titled as Virender Pathak vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 29.04.2024 and CWPOA No.1473 of 2019, titled as Dr. Asha Devi & Ors. vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 14.12.2023, whereby the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by the employees of the appellant- department were held to be counted towards the qualifying service, for the purposes of pension. The learned Single Judge has restricted the benefit as such to three years, prior to filing of the writ petition, while noticing that the position and law as such, is that ad hoc service followed by regular service in the same post, could be counted for the purposes of increments and it is a settled principle of law that if any service that is counted for the purpose of increments, will be counted for pension also. 2. The first judgment rendered by one of the - 3 - learned Single Judges was passed in CWPOA No.1473 of 2019, titled as Dr. Asha Devi & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 14.12.2023. It is pertinent to note that as many as 17 Veterinary Officers, had claimed the said benefit, for the purposes of counting their ad hoc services, rendered by them, as qualifying service for the purposes of grant of pension, and had worked from various periods ranging from the year 1993 to 2000, before they were regularized on 03.05.2005. Apparently the said judgment was never questioned by the State. 3. The other two CMP(M) No.467 of 2025 [LPA No.325 of 2025] and CMP(M) No.484 of 2025 [LPA No.324 of 2025], arise out of the orders dated 29.04.2024, whereby CWPOA No.1515 of 2019, titled as Dr. Virender Pathak & Ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and CWPOA No.1509 of 2019, titled as Dr. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., were both decided, following the view taken in Dr. Asha Devi’s case. 4. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay in Dr. Asha Devi’s case, would go on to show that it was the case of respondents itself, that the judgment was - 4 - passed on 14.12.2023 and it only came to the knowledge of Department on 26.03.2024, when instructions were sought from the Office of Advocate General, regarding the pendency of other matters, namely, Dr. Sarvesh Kumar and Dr. Virender Pathak. 5. It is the case of appellants-State that the matter could not be put up inadvertently, for seeking advice from the Government and the Administrative Department came to know only on 20.08.2024 from the Principal Secretary [Finance], thereby, advice was given to challenge the said judgment, in view of the fact that the subsequent judgment was passed on 29.04.2024. On 20.08.2024, the Department of Animal Husbandry sent the matter to the Administrative Department to seek permission to file the LPA and on 09.09.2024, the matter was taken up by the Law Department and on 21.09.2024 the Department had sent back the file. Resultantly on 25.09.2024, the Department sent the matter back to the Director Animal Husbandry, seeking certain clarification. An advice as such was given on 28.10.2024 to file the LPA and it is not disputed that even the certified copies as such had not been received till 12.11.2024 and was - 5 - only received on 26.11.2024, apparently, having been applied on 13.11.2024. Thereafter the appeal was prepared and filed, which had led to the delay of 433 days. 6. It is thus apparent that the State was total remiss in prosecuting the first appeal in question and no effort had been made as such, even to send the same for opinion to the concerned quarters to ascertain, as to whether the same would have a policy effect. It is only on account of the disposal of the other two cases at the subsequent point of time on 29.04.2024, the State has woken up out of its slumber and therefore is directly hit by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, which read as under:- “25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified - 6 - copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. 26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person incharge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.” 7. As noticed in the application, certified copy was only applied on 13.11.2024, which is almost a year - 7 - after the decision. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. In the connected applications also, it is to be noted that there is a delay of 248 days and the certified copy was applied on 02.05.2024, regarding the judgment dated 29.04.2024 but the laxity by the Department would go on to show that on 20.08.2024, when the Department sent the matter to the Administrative Department to file the appeals, the advice as such, was only given two months later on 28.10.2024 to file the LPA. Thereafter also, it has taken as much as four months’ for filing the appeals, which was done only on 20.02.2025. Therefore, even the other two appeals could also suffer from same ailment regarding the lack of sufficient cause as such, in spite of the fact that the decision in Dr. Asha Devi’s case had already been rendered and no cogent steps have been taken, still the Department chose to drag its feet and took the matter in a very casual way, for which no indulgence can be granted. 8. However, keeping in mind the merits as such, it is also to be observed that the learned Single - 8 - Judge recorded that while granting the benefit of regularization back on 03.05.2005, seniority had been given to the employees in question and reference was made to Condition No.11 as contained in the notification, which reads as under :- “11. With respect to determination of seniority of the ad hoc employees as are regularized shall be determine din accordance with the date of joining the post on ad hoc basis, if the date of joining the post(s) on ad hoc basis by such ad hoc employees was the same, then the elder employees shall rank senior to an employee younger in age.” 9. Apparently, it is only thereafter that the benefit of pension was not granted dehors the ad hoc period, the employees were forced to approach the Court to challenge the order dated 21.12.2012 [Annexure P-10]. Once the State itself had granted the benefit of seniority to the petitioners being ad hoc employees, the learned Single Judge rightly kept in mind, the law regarding the aspect that ad hoc period is liable to be subsumed into the regular period, for the purpose of grant of pension and in such circumstances also, we are of the considered opinion that the relief which has been granted by the learned Single Judge as such, is not liable to be interfered with. 10. Resultantly, we dismiss the present set of - 9 - appeals along the application(s) for condonation of delay, for want of sufficient cause. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 26, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Himani]