1 2025:HHC:27001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No.1295 of 2025 Decided on: 08.08.2025 State of H.P & another ......applicants Versus Sandhya Devi …..respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.5011 of 2020 titled Sandhya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 12.03.2024, whereby the writ petition as such has been allowed, directing regularizing the petitioner and condonation of 27 days shortfall on the ground that writ petitioner was in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27001 family way, and therefore entitled for the benefit of regularization as she was not able to join. Thus, she is given the indulgence as such for regularization at par with teachers who stood appointed with her initially. 2. The appeal is barred by 282 days in the application, whereas, as per the office calculation, it is barred by 241 days. Nevertheless, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has not been made out to condone the delay, since apparently, there is no valid justification for the delay which was caused firstly from August 2024 till December 2024 and then from January 2025 till the filing on 27th June, 2025. 3. Perusal of the application would go on to show that after the decision on 12.03.2024, the certified copy was applied for two days later on 15 March, 2024 and was delivered on 27.07.2024. 4. After a period of one month on 27.08.2024, the same was sent to the Law Branch for examination and 3 2025:HHC:27001 thereafter was sent to the Establishment Branch on 30.08.2024 for information. The Establishment Branch sat on the matter for three months and only issued the necessary letter on 05.12.2024 as to whether the appeal be filed and thereafter a decision was taken on 18.01.2025. 5. The justification of preparing the appeal in March 2025 to filing on 27.06.2025 is that the record as such was not complete and certain pleas that have been taken in the original application for extension of time, have not been appended as such to the original application. 6. We are of the considered opinion that once the reply had been filed before the Tribunal as such, no such stand can be taken that the documents were not available. It was at that stage that necessary documentation could have been done by the State, and filed the reply before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the story now put-forth to make out a sufficient cause, is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 2025:HHC:27001 7. 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 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. 5 2025:HHC:27001 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.” 8. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that the considerable delay has occurred in filing the appeal and not explained for 2 periods of over 3 months each, the Apex Court has strictly held in Chief Postmaster General’s case (supra), that if there is negligence and inaction on the part of the State, the benefit as such would have to flow to the opposite side. 9. Keeping in view the above, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and therefore the appeal is also not liable to be entertained on that count. 6 2025:HHC:27001 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 08, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge