2025:HHC:28402 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(OS)No.11 of 2025 Decided on: 19.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Binita Devi alias Binta Devi ...Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6-State. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.7. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] The present FAO(OS) is directed against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CMP-T No.251 of 2025 in CWPOA No. 1067 of 2017, which was an application for recalling the order dated 09.01.2023. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the same, on the ground that the writ petition had already been dismissed as withdrawn on the request of learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the considered opinion that there was no reason to recall the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:28402 - 2 - order and the Court was not convinced that the case was made out for recalling the order. 3. Learned Senior Counsel painstakingly took us through the history of the litigation, which started from the cancellation of order of appointment of the appellant as Primary Assistant Teacher on 21.10.2005. Apparently, there was a status quo order passed in favour of the appellant on 27.10.2005, in Original Application No.2661 of 2005 before the Erstwhile Tribunal. Upon transfer to this Court, the matter was re-numbered as CWP(T) No.12299 of 2008 and was dismissed in default on 08.03.2011. The petition was restored to its original number on 16.08.2012 and was thereafter, allowed on 18.12.2012. The private respondent [Narender Singh] had then preferred LPA No.60 of 2013, which was allowed and the matter was remanded on 20.05.2013, for fresh decision. 4. In the meantime, an order of regularization was passed on 23.08.2020 whereby the appellant was one of the beneficiaries having been allowed to join the duty as JBT regular w.e.f. 05.08.2020 in the pay band of Rs.5910- 20200+GP 3000/- with other allowances, as admissible from time to time, by the order of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Sataun District Sirmour, H.P. 5. Apparently, the writ petition was thereafter 2025:HHC:28402 - 3 - dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2023. The said order reads as under:- “Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has instructions to withdraw the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” 6. The said order was sought to be recalled by way of a copious application dated 25.05.2025, which was declined by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 05.06.2025. Thereafter CWP No.7300 of 2024 was filed by the private respondent [Narender Singh], who was also respondent in the litigation initiated by the present appellant and he sought appointment in place of the appellant. The relief claimed, as such, in the said writ petition, sought direction to implement the termination order of the present appellant and to appoint him with all consequential benefits for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. The said relief clause reads as under: “ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to 3 to implement the termination order 26.10.2005, of private Respondent; and/or iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the Petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher; and/or. iv. In the alternative Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the appointment of private respondent; and/or” 7. In the application for recalling of the order, it was mentioned by the present appellant that she was not even 2025:HHC:28402 - 4 - aware of the decision rendered in LPA No.60 of 2013 and also the filing of CWP No. 7300 of 2024. The same plea was repeated by the learned Senior Counsel that on account of various transfers of the matter to and fro between the High Court and the Tribunal, they had lost track of litigation and the withdrawal, as such, was without authority and without the appellant’s knowledge. 8. We are not convinced with the said arguments, specially, keeping in view the averments made in paragraph 15 regarding lack of knowledge of the decision in LPA No.60 of 2013. Apparently, nothing has been placed on record to show that what effective steps were taken to pursue the litigation from the date of the LPA judgment dated 20.05.2013, till the withdrawal of the writ petition on 09.01.2023. It is duty of the litigant, as such, to keep track of her own case and, therefore, the argument that there was bonafide belief that the matter stood concluded on 18.12.2012, does not hold much substance. 9. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of action was primarily on account of filing of CWP No.7300 of 2024 by the private respondent [Narender Singh] whereby certain relief had been sought against the present appellant. It is always open to the appellant to defend himself in the said proceedings by filing a written statement 2025:HHC:28402 - 5 - and put forth his case that there was an order of regularization already in her favour, as has been pleaded in the application for recall of the order. The relevant part reads as under: “That the petitioner approached the undersigned counsel only after receiving summons in CWP No.7300/2024, filed by (Narinder Singh, respondent no.7 in CWP(T) 12299/2008 and petitioner in this case), wherein he alleged that she had conveniently withdrawn the earlier case and now he (Narinder Singh) should be appointed in her place. The petitioner expressed shock at this development and only then disclosed the full chain of events, yet she had no knowledge of decision of LPA No.60/2013, why so, because she had received all communication from the department regarding her re-appointment and further her being imparted D.El.ed Training. The petitioner further received her regularization orders. The petitioner also came to know that the law department had given opinion not to file any appeal in this case, all such documents are attached here with this application for ready reference and perusal. That the petition filed by Mr. Narinder Singh, registered as CWP No.7300/2024, also does not disclose anything regarding, the CWP(T) 12299/2008 decided on 18.12.2012 and LPA No.60 of 2013, decided on 20.05.2013. There were many other facts, which were not disclosed in the CWP No.7300/2024, such as reappointment of the petitioner and further imparting of D.El.ed Training, as also her regularization. All such facts were necessary and are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter.” 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to prolong the litigation which has otherwise reached its natural death over the period of time and, therefore, there is no merit, in the present appeal. 2025:HHC:28402 - 6 - 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 19th August, 2025 [himani/shivender]