2025:HHC:21673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.35 of 2025 Decided on: 03.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Chaman Bala ...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...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. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5-State. Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Ms. Dhanwanti Devi, Advocate, for respondent No.7. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present appeal directed against the order of learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No.2751 of 2021 titled as Chaman Bala Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed on 15.10.2024 and costs of Rs.25,000/- was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:21673 - 2 - imposed for driving the private respondent into unnecessary litigation on account of 14 years having been passed, when she was appointed against the post of Anganwari Worker. The cost was thus to be paid within a period of two weeks. 2. The primary argument which has now been raised and noticed by us, that on an earlier occasion also on 19.05.2025, as canvassed by the counsel for the appellant, was that the private respondent herself was not eligible and it was one of the prayers in the writ petition that the State was not looking into the said issue, therefore, the private respondent was not liable to be continued in service. 3. The learned Single Judge primarily dismissed the writ petition, as noticed above, on the ground of delay and laches, keeping in view the fact that services of writ petitioner had been dispensed with on account of her being not eligible and on 10.10.2007, services of writ petitioner were terminated. On 28.08.2007 the private respondent was appointed and the writ petition having been filed on 09.04.2021 after 14 years, it was noticed that the cancellation as such, of the appointment of 2025:HHC:21673 - 3 - petitioner [Annexure P-5] was not the subject matter of challenge. Resultantly, while placing reliance upon the judgments in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and Another vs K. Thangappan and Another (2006) 4 SCC 322, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Others vs T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 and in Mrinmoy Maity vs Chhanda Koley and Others (Civil Appeal Nos.5027 of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30152 of 2018), the writ petition was dismissed. Though the counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that fraud vitiates all proceedings and therefore, since the private respondent was not eligible, having more income than prescribed, she could not have been appointed. 4. It is in such circumstances, it is submitted that the State be directed to act on prayer (iv) made in the writ petition for holding an inquiry into the matter and take suitable departmental action against the concerned respondents for not discharging their statutory duties. 5. Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, 2025:HHC:21673 - 4 - appearing for private respondent No.7 on the other hand, submits that an order dated 19.03.2008 [Annexure P-6] was also passed, whereby, the petition challenging the appointment of private respondent as such, was dismissed on the ground of limitation, which is also not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. There was a remedy to file an appeal against the said order which was never done way back in the year 2008 and merely because the writ petitioner had been representing before various authorities, would not give her a cause of action to file the writ petition at a belated stage. 6. Accordingly, it is submitted that the reasoning adopted by learned Single Judge, does not as such suffer from any infirmity or illegality, which would warrant interference by the Appellate Court at this stage. 7. Counsel for the State however, very fairly pointed out a neutral stand while preferring to the reply of respondent No.5, that there was an ambiguity as such, that income of respondent No.7 had been reassessed in excess to the extent of Rs.33,000/- contrary to the production of income certificate of Rs.5,500/- and 2025:HHC:21673 - 5 - Rs.11,000/-. It is however, the contention of counsel for respondent No.7 that this reassessment was done at the subsequent stage and not at the time of the cut off date provided, as noticed, since the appointment was on 03.08.2007. 8. It is submitted that in the absence of any specific order being passed or any proceedings being initiated, private respondent would not be liable to be acted upon at this belated stage. It is also pointed out from the record that over all these long years, firstly, a show cause notice was issued on 31.07.2009 to respondent No.7 and thereafter, she submitted a reply on 07.10.2009 [Annexure P-15], but the authority as such had not acted upon the same. Even a show cause notice had been issued on 31.07.2009 for terminating her services, but no final order as such, had been passed and therefore at this belated stage, the matter should not be reopened. 9. Keeping in view the arguments which have been raised and the fact that apparently, after the appointment of private respondent, apart from communication to the Government and filing complaints, 2025:HHC:21673 - 6 - it is apparent that the appellant as such, did not take recourse to any legal remedy. It is also to be noticed that on 02.11.2011 [Annexure P-28], legal notice was served, complaining about the arbitrary termination on 28.082007 and also the ineligibility of private respondent and that she would initiate appropriate proceedings at an appropriate point of time, but nothing was done. A second legal notice was again served on 31.03.2019 [Annexure P-42], whereby, history was given, as how the department was proceeding and respondent No.7 was continuing enjoying the fruits of service and therefore, a detailed inquiry was sought in the matter. 10. It is thus apparent, that it is only thereafter, after a period of two years the writ petition came to be filed and in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the recent observations of the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13580 of 2023, titled as Bhag Chand Versus Bhupender Kumar & Ors., decided on 12.02.2025, which also pertains to litigation from this Court would come into play. The Apex Court as such, interfered on noting that 15 years period had passed and the jurisdiction of Writ Court had then been 2025:HHC:21673 - 7 - invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding selection process which had taken place in the year 2008 and a right which had accrued to the appellant, a decade and a half back, could not be taken away on the basis of the writ petition, filed. 11. Resultantly, keeping in view the question framed and the fact that no action had been taken to challenge the process, the delay on the part of writ petitioner was held to be fatal and the appeal was allowed and the order passed by this Court as such was set aside. This authority is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with. However, keeping in view the fact, as noticed that the writ petitioner/appellant was agitating for her grievances consistently, we are of concerned opinion that in the peculiar facts of case, the imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- was not justified by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, we allow the present appeal to the limited extent that the appellant shall not be liable to pay the costs imposed 2025:HHC:21673 - 8 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 03, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Bhardwaj]