1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.2400 of 2025 Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Applicants/ Appellants Versus Anuj Kumari …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Nemo. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) The present appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.575 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023, has been preferred after an inordinate delay of 709 days, as per the applicants/appellants. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Manipur and others vs. Koting Lamkang, (2019) 10 SCC 408 to submit that the delay is liable to be condoned, since the principles laid down in the said judgment, as such, was that the State Government’s functioning could 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 result in injustice to the institutional interest where individual officer fails to act responsibly. The appeals, if filed by the State are lost for individual interest, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected. It is thus contended that costs can be imposed upon the State to condone the delay as is done in the said case, as the learned Single Judge has directed consideration for compassionate appointment keeping in view the fact that the death of the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner had occurred during service at the age of 40, way back in the year, 2017 and, therefore, consideration as per the Policy framed in the year, 2019 was not correct. Rejection on that ground on 23.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) had been wrongly quashed and fresh consideration has been directed in terms of prevailing Policy at the relevant time from the date of death of the husband of petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157. 3. A perusal of the application would go on to show that after decision in the case on 01.09.2023, the respondent had also downloaded a copy of the judgment from the official website and the same was sent to E-1 Branch of the Office of the applicants. Learned Additional Advocate General had also applied the certified copy of the judgment on 04.10.2023 expeditiously and the same was supplied on 3 16.10.2023 and received by the Law Branch of the applicants, on 17.10.2023. The matter had been taken up for further direction on 17.10.2023. However, no directions were received w.e.f. 17.10.2023 till 04.07.2024 a period of 09 months. Again, a request was made and only after a period of 11 months on 25.09.2024, the Government asked for providing original case alongwith relevant documents. The approval was thereafter given only on 09.05.2025 to file the appeal a period of one year after the second request had been received which goes to show that it was gross negligence and inaction on the part of the State while dealing with the case of compassionate appointment, for which the writ petitioner, as such, was fighting for consideration for appointment on the death of her husband at the young age of 40 years, who had already rendered service upto 17 years. 4. We are also referring and touching the merits of case, keeping in view the fact that in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Union of India and another, 2023(10 SCC 531, it has been held that while deciding such application, the merits of the claim may also be considered and whether such policy issue is to be affected. It is to be further noticed that we have already, in principle, decided in LPA No.797 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sarita Devi keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in a three Judge Bench judgment in, State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Shrivas 2020(10) SCC 496, that the 4 date of demise is to be seen unless subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. We also made reference to the judgment of the Apex Court, in State of Karnataka vs. Bheemesh, 2021(20) SCC 707, wherein it has been held that the only fixed factor is the date of death that does not change and, therefore, on account of the fact that the date of the application and the date of the consideration of the policy would be different, the differential treatment should not be given to the employees. The relevant Paragraph reads as under:- “20. The relevant Paragraph reads as under:- “20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date, namely, the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 government serviant dies in harness on 1-1-2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5-2020 and 2-6- 2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 1-6- 2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before 1-6- 2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 1-6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same 5 date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.” 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that even on merits also the State does not have a case. In Koting Lamkang’s case (supra), we notice that delay in filing the regular first appeal (RFA) was shown to be 44 days, which was before a wrong forum and delay in fact, was 312 days. It was accordingly held that if the main appeal was not heard, it would affect public interest as it was a strategically sensitive case involving security of the State which should not be non suited on the ground of delay. The decree in question if executed would require the Director General of Police and the Commandant of the 8th Battalion of the Manipur Rifles to vacate and handover the land in dispute which was projected to be an area of strategic importance by the applicant. It is in such circumstances, the 6 application had been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant. 6. The present case as such would go on to show that the benefit as such would not be liable to be granted, especially keeping in view the law laid down, time and again, by the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Chief Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and elaborated in Esha Bhattachargee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. 7. Recently, in Special Leave Petition (c) Diary No.54941 of 2025, the Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, after considering the earlier judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and G. Ramegowda vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 2 SCC 142, the Apex Court again did not permit the condonation of delay of eight years while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in University of Delhi vs. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 745 and Pathapati Suba Reddy vs. Collector (LA) (2024) 12 SCC 336. Resultantly, it has been held that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the explanation given as such, was a lame excuse and no case was made out for exercising the jurisdiction and the Courts cannot help a litigant, 7 who is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference being the Government. 8. In such circumstances, we do not condone the delay, as such, and dismiss the application. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) February 24, 2026 (KS/ST) Judge