1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17922 of 2025 Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Union of India and another …… Petitioners Versus Khem Raj Verma and another …… Respondents 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 Petitioners : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India. For the Respondents : Mr. Sajeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is against the order dated 09.07.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench) at Shimla, whereby, the order passed by the present petitioners dated 13.07.2015 rejecting their claim for regularization was set aside. Directions were issued that once the posts of MTS are available in the Institution, it cannot be said that the respondents cannot be adjusted against them and further if they cannot 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 not regularized, at least they can be considered against them for fresh appointment prospectively, while noting the fact that the said employees, as such, had been working between 1999-2004, on contract basis. 2. The Union of India, as such, was satisfied with the said order and chose not to agitate it for all these long years. It was only when subsequent order dated 07.08.2025 was passed in a miscellaneous application by noting that earlier order had not been complied with, in letter and spirit and fresh directions were issued, the present writ petition has been preferred. In such circumstances, it is only re-iteration of earlier view, as such, finally inter se the parties. 3. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that challenge to the earlier order, which has become final, at such a belated stage, would not be maintainable. The second order, as such, was only by way of execution petition and, therefore, it cannot give the Union of India a fresh cause of action, as such, to contest their case on merits. 4. In similar circumstances, present petitioners had also filed CWP No.6810 of 2025 titled Indian Institute of Advanced Studies vs. Dr. S.K. Goel and another dated 23.07.2025, wherein, there was a delay of more than two years in filing the writ petition and we have dismissed the said writ petition keeping in view the law laid down in CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi, dated 25.02.2025 that the writ petition filed after a gap of two years from the decision of the Tribunal would not be liable to be entertained since vested rights, as such, 3 accrued in favour of the litigant. Relevant portion of the judgment passed in Pawna Devi’s case (supra) reads as under:- “4. We are of the considered opinion that though there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petitions which challenge the orders of the Tribunal while invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the Union of India cannot be permitted free play, as such to challenge the said orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years in all these set of cases. The parties to the litigation have developed a vested right as such after the orders have come in force in their favour and for the Union of India as such to file these writ petitions after the delay as mentioned above, cannot as such be countenanced in the absence of any justifiable reasons. 5 to 7…….. 8. Thus, we can safely hold that there is deliberate inaction and lack of bonafide by the Union of India which amounts to gross negligence and the Union of India cannot take advantage of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court whereby, the right to challenge the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal has been cemented by noticing that constitutional provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed. 9 to 10……… 11. In service matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that the orders passed by the authorities regarding seniority etc. be challenged within a reasonable time and reference can be made in the judgment of P.S. Sadasivcaswamyv. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, whereby the right has been curtailed of the litigants to challenge the administrative orders or claim the right to seniority by filing the writ petitions. 4 12. The said principle can be kept in mind while deciding the present cases also. The concept of liberal approach has to be kept in mind, but the concept of reasonableness and a total unfettered free play cannot be permitted and there is a distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration. The fundamental principle before the Court is to weigh the balance of justice in respect of both parties and inaction of a party cannot be given the go-by in the name of a liberal approach and the lack of bonafide’s which is a relevant factor. 13 to 21… … … 22. In State of Orissa and others versus SunandaMahakuda(2021) 1 SCC 560, similar observations came forth from the apex Court while dismissing a Special Leave Petition which was time barred and proceedings had been filed after contempt proceedings had been initiated on the dismissal of the writ appeal and therefore, the conduct of the State Government was depreciated while imposing costs of Rs.25000/-. 23. Similar was the position in State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus SabhaNarain and others(2022) 9 SCC 266, which is a three Judge Bench verdict. The relevant portion reads as under:- “4.We have also categorized such kind of cases as “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time 5 when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens.” 24. In PathapatiSubba Reddy (died) by LRs and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 SC OnLine SC 513, it was also held that stale matters cannot be entertained to defeat the substantial law of limitation and Statute. 25. It is not the case of Union of India that there is any fraud or misrepresentation in the present set of cases, whereby mainly the legal representatives of the Armed Forces are seeking redressal of their rights. The State or the public body can be given some acceptable latitude keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the principle of limitation and though no precise formula, as such,can be laid down, but we cannot brush aside the fact that the parties in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal could have also resorted to getting the orders executed by filing appropriate remedies and Tribunal has also granted the benefit of penal interest, if the payment is not made within the prescribed period. Inspite of this fact the Union of India chose to sit tight and chose not to file the writ petitions within a reasonable period which can be classified as one year and beyond the same, no indulgence can be granted. 26. Therefore, the period prior to 18.10.2023 as such between the date of the decisions ranging from May/August/November, 2022 cannot be condoned in any manner and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches as on account of Union of India not having resorted to its legal remedies 6 expeditiously or even having made reasonable effort to challenge the said orders or even take a decision as such to challenge the said orders for a period of over one year. The latitude as such on account of laxity on the department, in such circumstances cannot be extended. 27. Without going into the merits of the cases, we are of the considered opinion that there is a delay of over a year from passing of the orders and no effort was made to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal within a reasonable time, therefore, on account of the opinion given on 18.09.2023, the Union of India cannot raise the issue on merits. 28. Resultantly, there is no other option, but to dismiss these four writ petitions on account of the principle of delay and laches and the same are accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, as such, having been put to notice of the said events on 19.11.2025, had taken time seeking necessary instructions, but apparently there is no positive instruction in favour of the respondents. Only communication dated 24.02.2026 has been placed on record showing that order directing framing of charge in the contempt petition of even date of 07.08.2025 is sought to be challenged before the Apex Court. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that no indulgence can be given to the Union of India in view of the settled position of law and on account of the apparent negligence in contesting the present petition. 7 7. In view of above terms, present petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) February 26, 2026 (KS/ST) Judge