2025:HHC:14622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(T) No. 927 of 2024 in CWPOA No.6600 of 2020 Decided on: 16.05.2025 ______________________________________________________ Narayan Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the applicant: Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Applicant seeks restoration of the main writ petition, received by way of transfer from the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed on 23.04.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:14622 - 2 - Court by noticing that counsel for the petitioner had not appeared in the Court on the last three dates. 2. The application is barred by 145 days. The application is opposed as such by the State Counsel that the applicant had never cared about the status of the case since the date of filing of the writ petition and even counsel for the applicant had not checked up the latest status on the official website. 3. A perusal of the original file would go on to show that the application for appointment on compassionate basis was filed in the year 2019 on account of death of the father of the applicant, who was working as a Beldar and had expired on 07.04.2004. Apparently, the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father as his date of birth is 01.03.1990. The original application was filed before the Tribunal after the lapse of ten years. Thus, the cause of action had arisen in the year 2008 when the petitioner had become a major. 4. The explanation, as such, has been given in the Original Application/Writ petition that number of correspondences were exchanged and the matter remained pending with the respondents. Thus, the relief was sought 2025:HHC:14622 - 3 - that consideration of the case may be done. 5. Apparently, the applicant was negligent in pursuing the case for appointment on compassionate basis and the sole purpose is to provide immediate succour to the family is lacking. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 thus, come into play, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that consideration on such an application has to be done immediately necessitating the fact that the earning member has been taken away suddenly. The delay as such in filing the Original Application before the Tribunal has not been explained in any manner and by merely filing the representation, the cause of action does not continue to survive. 6. A perusal of the zimini orders would go on to show that at the time of initial notice issued by the Tribunal on 11.04.2019, the applicant was represented by the counsel, but none had put in appearance thereafter on behalf of the petitioner, after the matter was transferred to this Court and was taken up on 09.10.2023, 08.01.2024 and 05.03.2024. It is also apparent that no urgency as such was ever shown by 2025:HHC:14622 - 4 - filing an application for listing of the case, especially keeping in view the nature of the litigation or the relief sought. In such circumstances, we do not find that this case as such requires restoration. 7. In view of above discussion, we decline to recall the order passed in the main matter. The application is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge May 16, 2025 (R.Atal)