2025:HHC:36853 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 1752 of 2024 Date of decision: 29.10.2025 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Sh. Vishwa Nath (Deceased) through his LRs. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants.: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocates, for respondents No. 1(i), 1(iii), 1(iv) and 1(v). G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present application for condonation of delay has been preferred by the appellants-State for condoning the delay of 252 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 09.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3548 of 2019. 2. The perusal of the application would go to show that the learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 18.11.2013 and directed the appellants-State to process the case of the petitioner for pension by considering his date of appointment as 25.04.1996 only on the account that the employee was falling short of the requisite qualifying date by three (3) months and 20 days. The reason which weighed with 2 2025:HHC:36853 the learned Single Judge as such was that on account of the fact that the deceased writ petitioner was an Air Force personnel, who had been engaged thereafter by the police department, had reported in the office for duty on 04.06.1996, but only was given duty on 21.08.1996 and, therefore, had fallen short of the said period. 3. It is a matter of regret that an ex-personnel of the armed force has been treated with dis-regard by the State and was forced to fight for his pensionary rights and in the said process he had also not seen the fruits of the litigation and now is being represented by his legal representatives. 4. We are only considering this aspect on merits keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Union of India & another, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein it has been held that even the merits would have to be touched while deciding the application for condonation of delay and, therefore, now we proceed to dismiss the application for condonation of delay on account of lack of sufficient cause. 5. 5. The copy of judgment dated 09.10.2023 was applied on 18.10.2023 and the same was delivered on 06.12.2023, as per the certified copy received in the office of the appellant No. 2-Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. 3 2025:HHC:36853 6. As per the application for condonation of delay, the matter was initially referred to the Himachal Pradesh Government for advice vide letter dated 15.05.2024. The only explanation given for over five (5) months delay was that the matter has been sent back to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, being the custodian of the record and then received back. There is no explanation given that when it was sent and when it was received back, which has been highlighted by the counsel for the respondents. Thereafter also, there is an inordinate delay as such of two and a half months. It has also been averred that the government had directed the appellants to assail the judgment vide letter dated 09.08.2024. The appeal was thereafter again filed at a belated stage of over a month on 13.09.2024. 7. Counsel for the appellants-State has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6145 of 2024, titled Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 21.03.2025, wherein by imposition of Rs.50,000/- costs, the order of condoning the delay has been upheld in favour of the State. 8. We have gone through the said judgment wherein the issue was related to the land claimed by the State Government as a government land and in its possession and had been allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare 4 2025:HHC:36853 Department and the Collectorate and possession as such had continued and, therefore, on account of the claim of the State over the government land could not be summarily discarded, the Apex Court upheld the order passed in favour of the State. 9. The facts of the present case have already been noted above. 10. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, wherein it has been held that in absence of any plausible and tangible explanation for long delay, there was no valid reason to condone the delay. 11. In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, it has been held that liberal concession may have to be adopted, but the department cannot take advantage of its own impersonal machinery and they have to perform the duty with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception. 12. In Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, it has been held that vesting of certain rights of litigants have to be kept in mind before condoning the delay. 13. The life span of each legal remedy has been expounded in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy 5 2025:HHC:36853 (2012) 12 SCC 693 and further elaborated In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649. 14. The Apex Court has time and again held that filing of routine appeals has become the standard of the State Government and to get certificates from the Courts though certain latitude as such has to be shown to the government. 15. Resultantly, keeping in view the settled principle of law on the issue of limitation, we find that there are too many gaps as such, which the State has failed to justify its inaction of five months and of more than a month on two occasions. 16. In peculiar facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the right of pension of an ex-serviceman is involved, we do not find it a fit case as such to condone the day. 17. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal has to necessarily follow the same fate. 18. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 29th October, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)