2025:HHC:37715 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1619 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 768 of 2025. Decided on: 03 rd November , 2025 ____________________________________________________ __ HPSEB and another ....Applicants Versus Sant Ram and another ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ 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/ appellants: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Manhas, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) The present belated appeal which is delayed by 282 days, is directed against the order of the learned Single judge, whereby CWP No. 383 of 2023 was allowed on 09.10.2023, whereby directions were issued as such, to quash the order dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) and the respondent bank was directed to deduct amount of 7,35,465/- from the account of the appellant- ₹ board and remit the same into the bank account of the employee within two weeks. The employee was also held entitled to interest on such amount at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37715 deduction to the date of actual remittance in the account. The reasoning which prevailed with the learned Single Judge while passing the said order was that the employee had retired way back on 30.09.2006 and he had been paid excess pension consistently of 1960/- every month and the amount had then accumulated and the ₹ recovery thereafter directed to be effected on the directions by the present appellant to the bank was not justified. Reliance was placed upon the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein principles were laid down that recovery cannot be effected from a retired employee especially when there is a payment which has been in excess of a period of five years. In such circumstances the writ petition has been allowed. 2. Firstly, keeping in view the law laid down in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Union of Indian & Anr. , (2023) 10 SCC 531, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal on that account also, that the merits have to be also looked at while condoning the delay. A retired employee who was not even associated in the decision making and only a copy was endorsed on 14.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) was then forced to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances. The 3 2025:HHC:37715 retirement was way back on 30.09.2006. No effort apparently was made by the appellant to examine the accounts and to see that whether the pension was being wrongly granted for all these long years. In such circumstances the challenge had been raised to the impugned order and only the relief was given to this limited extent, whereas declining to grant any relief regarding the fixation of the pension of the employee. 3. While examining the application for condonation of delay, it would go on to show the casual manner in which the matter was contested by the appellant. The judgment was passed on 09.10.2023 and the copy was applied on 02.07.2024 after a period of ten months. The attempt has been made in the application to shift the responsibility upon the earlier counsel on the ground that he was counsel for the appellant-board and appointed as an Additional Advocate General in the office of Advocate General of Himachal Pradesh. Neither the name of the said counsel has been mentioned, and as when he was appointed in the application and what efforts were made as such, regarding tracing the files entrusted to him and when the files were taken from his office. The copy of the second portion where the limitation again had run without any effective steps being taken was when the copy was received on 22.07.2024. 4 2025:HHC:37715 Complete appeal was only filed on 04.09.2025. Apparently the LPA was filed initially on 26.07.2024, incomplete in various aspects and was returned on 03.10.2024 as per the office noting and thereafter, refiled on 04.09.2024 and again was returned on 30.12.2024. For a period of eight long months, no efforts were made and the refiling was done only on 04.09.2025. In such circumstances another application for condonation of delay of 304 days in refiling has been filed. The said application for condonation of delay is also not supported by any affidavit of the official as to what transpired for eight long months to refile the appeal. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the vested rights as such, which have come into play to the employee, cannot be trampled upon by the State. 4. The reference can be made to the judgment in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, wherein it has been held by condoning the limitation the rights of the parties cannot be destroyed. Similarly, in Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, it has been held that certain rights are acquired by the litigant and there should be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay if the Court finds negligence in prosecuting the 5 2025:HHC:37715 case. 5. In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649, principles of limitation were laid down and thereafter, in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, titled as H. Guruswamy & Ors. Verus A. Krishnaiah Since deceased by LRs, the following observations have come forth :- “16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.” 6. Thus, keeping in view the settled principles of law, we 6 2025:HHC:37715 do not find it a fit case as such to condone the delay in the peculiar facts and circumstances as the rights of a retired employee are adversely affected, and putting him to notice as such, in the present application would further compound his misery. 7. Resultantly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 03 rd November , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (Anurag) Judge