2025:HHC:16727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.796 of 2025 a/w LPA No:264 of 2025 Decided On : 27th May, 2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellants & Others Versus Madan Lal ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.4647 of 2020, titled as Madan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. As per office noting, the said appeal is barred by 326 days and thus resultantly application for condonation of delay (CMP(M) No.796 of 2025) has also been filed for condoning the delay of 324 days in filing the appeal. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:16727 - 2 - 2. Apparently, the appellants were never interested in filing the present appeal, since the learned Single Judge had only directed consideration of the case of the writ petitioner that the department was to calculate number of days he has put in from the month of January, 2011. If the petitioner fulfilled the criteria for conferment of work charge status, having necessarily put in 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year and thereafter if he had become eligible for conferment of regularization as per policy of State Government, the benefit was to be conferred upon him. It is also noticed that the learned Single Judge did not grant the benefit of service from 2003 onwards, as there was prayer for condoning the shortage of days in each calendar year from the said year and therefore, granted only restricted consideration. The relevant portion of impugned order reads as under:- “7. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Department will calculate the number of days that have been put in by the petitioner as from the month of January, 2011 and in case he fulfills the criteria for conferment of work charge status having put in eight years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, then work charge status be conferred upon him and if he thereafter becomes eligible for conferment of regularization as per the Policy of the State 2025:HHC:16727 - 3 - Government in vogue, then said benefit be also conferred upon him with consequential benefits. It is clarified that in case the petitioner is held entitled to the above mentioned reliefs, then as till the date of filing of the petition the monetary benefits accruing thereupon shall be notional and actual benefits shall accrue as from the date of filing of the Writ petition.” 3. The State being bound by the said directions therefore, passed the orders on 16th August, 2024 rejecting the case of the writ petitioner by a speaking order which has now been appended as Annexure A-III. The reasoning, as such, primarily is that the work was done on bill basis by the writ petitioner from April, 2011 till May, 2023 and the bills had been prepared as item-wise lowest rates quoted by petitioner and he had not worked on daily wage basis while falling back upon the Notification dated 28.04.2009, issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, Forest Department [Annexure-VI]. 4. Apparently, the writ petitioner filed contempt petition i.e. COPC No.604 of 2024, seeking the compliance of orders dated 07.05.2024 and the matter was listed on 16.10.2024, before the learned Single Judge and respondents were also directed to file reply within three weeks. The reply was then filed on 26.11.2024 and the Court passed the following order on 12.12.2024. 2025:HHC:16727 - 4 - “ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents on one hand has not implemented the judgment in issue and now have aggravated the contempt by taking a stand that the work charge status cannot be conferred upon the petitioner as for the period concerned he was serving on bill base basis. This Court is of the considered view that as the judgment is un-ambiguous as to on what basis the right of the petitioner to be conferred work charge status, was to be considered, the endeavour of the respondents to overreach the judgment indeed aggravates the contempt. In terms of the judgment, this Court had issued a mandamus that if from the month of January, 2011, the petitioner had put in more than 240 days in each calendar year for a period of eight years, then work charge status was to be conferred upon the petitioner. In the light of said direction, any other view that is being taken by the Authority obviously amounts to overreaching the judgment.” 5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.01.2025 and 20.03.2025 before the learned Single Judge, and the order passed was to seek instructions in terms of order dated 12.12.2024. It is at that stage, the present applicants-appellants decided to appeal against the said order, which would be clear from the application for condonation of delay as the certified copy had been applied within three days from the date of impugned order i.e. on 10.05.2025 and the same had also been supplied on the same day. At that point of time no effort had been made to 2025:HHC:16727 - 5 - file the appeal as the applicants-appellants were satisfied with the order of consideration which has been passed. 6. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests [HoFF], Himachal Pradesh examined the matter in consultation with learned District Attorney [Forests] and thereafter, on 11.04.2025 requested the Government to examine the case and resultantly decision was taken on 05.05.2025 to file the LPA, which is clear from Annexure- IV. 7. A perusal of the said communication which is addressed from the Special Secretary [Forests] to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, would go on to show that there is no reference at all regarding consideration already done on 16.08.2024. It is apparent, thus, only on account of the observation of learned Single Judge on 12.12.2024 the State has been asked to seek instructions, the decision to file the appeal had been taken. The inaction is thus apparent or rather the compliance of the order was to be done. 8. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, it was held that law of 2025:HHC:16727 - 6 - limitation is founded on public policy and resultantly the appeal was allowed and the order condoning the delay as such of four years in filing the appeal was set aside by holding that in the absence of any plausible/tangible explanation for long delay of more than four years in filing of appeal, there was no valid reasons to condone the delay. 9. In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, the principles as such have been laid down that the department could not take advantage of impersonal machinery or the inherited bureaucratic methodology and the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:- “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 2025:HHC:16727 - 7 - or lack of bonafide, 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 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay as the consideration has already been done and accordingly, application for condonation of delay i.e. CMP(M) No.796 of 2025, is dismissed. 11. Even otherwise, on merits, we are also of the 2025:HHC:16727 - 8 - considered opinion that the consideration has been done on the order dated 07.05.2024 and it is always open to the appellants, as such, to justify, whether it was done correctly or not before the learned Single Judge. 12. Thus, the principles laid down in Chief Postmaster General & Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd (supra) would come in the way of the State as there was total inaction to file the appeal and rather compliance of the order in the manner, the State thought fit had been done. 13. In such circumstances also nothing survives, as such, in the present appeal. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 27, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]