The State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Nanak Chand & Ors. Item No.(D-3) CMP(M) No.1247 of 2024 20.05.2025 Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the appellants/State. Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP(M) No.1247 of 2024 The present appeal filed by the State is barred by delay of 310 days in filing the appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in CWPOA No.2507 of 2019 on 03.05.2023. 2. The application filed by the State mentions that the copy of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge was received in the office of appellant No.3 on 28.06.2023 and then it was forwarded to the Administrative Branch for further necessary action on 03.07.2023. The matter was put up before the higher authority on 10.08.2023 and the said authority decided on 11.08.2023 to take up the matter with the Administrative Department. The matter was then taken up with the Administrative Department on 25.10.2023 and the said Administrative Department on 28.02.2024 decided to file the appeal. In such circumstances, sufficient cause of delay has been shown in filing the appeal. 3. The application for condonation of delay has been contested by the respondents by filing the reply that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and even the contempt notices were issued and that the respondents had retired long back in the years 2013 & 2014. 4. On 05.11.2024, learned State Counsel prayed for and was granted three weeks’ time to file better affidavit, and resultantly, better affidavit dated 03.12.2024 came to be filed on behalf of the State. 5. In the said affidavit filed by the Director of Higher Education, details of such delay have been given regarding merits of the case as such and the factum of the Notification being quashed and set-aside and the petitioners were held entitled for grant of Revised Pay Band w.e.f. 01.10.2012. 6. The date of retirements as such of the writ petitioners also mention retirement years 2013/2014 and they are at the age of 70 years and are waiting for their legitimate claim pending earlier to their retirement and also after the decision of this Court. 7. It is also further clarified that during the intervening period, apparently there was a gap during October, 2023 and February, 2024. The Administrative Department was directed to examine the matter by the higher authority and again the matter was sent to the Administrative Department, and resultantly, the permission was granted on 28.02.2024 to assail the judgment of learned Single Judge by filing the appeal. Thereafter, the LPA was drafted on 28.03.2024 and was sent for vetting on 31.03.2024 and a final copy the LPA was sent for signature of the Director of Higher Education on 12.04.2024, which was signed by the concerned Director on 18.04.2024. Thereafter, the LPA was filed on 25.04.2025. 8. Thus, in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents in case State of Odisha and Others vs. Sunanda Mahakuda, (2021) 11 SCC 560; and State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, was a case where there was delay of 663 days. In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case Post Master General & Others vs. Living Media India Litd & Another,  (2012) 3 SCC 563, has been referred to, while dismissing the application and imposing costs. 9. The observations and law laid-down in case Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107), was also kept in mind that latitude has to be given to the Government. Thus, the delay was of almost a period of over two years in that case. 10. Similarly, in Sunanda Mahakuda’s case supra [(2021) 11 SCC 560], the application as such was dismissed and cost was imposed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on account of fact that there was a delay of 1954 days from the order of learned Single Judge and 545 days qua the order in Writ Appeal and also delay of 783 days till the Writ Appeal, which was not properly explained. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the dismissal of the Writ Appeal by the High Court by the order dated 19.04.2019, and in such circumstances, the delay was not condoned. 12. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in case Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. & Others vs. Union of India and Another, (2023) 10 SCC 531, has further expounded the theory of “sufficient cause” to condone the delay as per the prayer as such and also on account of the fact that the merits of the claim have also to be taken into account. The relevant paras 35.1 to 36 of the said judgment, read as under:- “35.1. The law of limitation was founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. 35.2. The expression sufficient cause is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against one another, the former would prevail. 35.3. It is upon the courts to consider the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay, and the length of delay is not always decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay is properly explained. Further, the merits of a claim were also to be considered when deciding such applications for condonation of delay. 35.4. Further, a distinction should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the government functionaries and the government counsel on record before the Reference Court. 35.5. The officer responsible for the negligence would be liable to suffer and not public interest through the State. The High Court felt inclined to take a pragmatic view since the negligence therein did not border on callousness. 36. Given these reasons, we do not consider discretion to have been exercised by the High Court in an arbitrary manner. The order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not.” 13. Thus, keeping in view the fact that in the present case, learned Single Judge has granted the relief by holding that the cut-off date for grant of revised pay scale was not justified and there was no nexus to fix the 1st November, 2014, would have cascading effect on similarly situated persons who are likely to approach the Court. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid-down in the State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 752; and G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142, that each and every day’s delay has not to be explained and if there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction, the Court would be liberal as such in condoning the delay. 14. Resultantly, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 310 days in filing the LPA, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. 15. LPA be registered. 16. Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable for 15th July, 2025, on taking steps within a week. 17. In the meanwhile, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 03.05.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.2507 of 2019, shall remain stayed. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 20, 2025 (Yashwant)