1 2025:HHC:44241 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.867 of 2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025 State of H.P. & another ...Appellants Versus Ravinder Singh ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) By way of the present appeal, which has been preferred by the State against the order dated 31.7.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7051 of 2021, which is barred by 380 days, the appellants-State pray for setting aside the said judgment, whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed that the employee, as such, has to be given the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh Vs State of H.P decided on 08.03.2018. The said direction was issued on account of the fact that the respondent herein has retired from 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:44241 ) service after attaining the age of superannuation after completing 9 years and 2 months service and, therefore, the benefits of pension had to be given by treating qualifying service as 10 years. 2. The factual matrix, as such, is only being referred to keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in case titled as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs Vs Union of India 2023 (10) SCC 531 that brief look at the facts should be necessary while deciding the application for condonation of delay for which we find that there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the inordinate delay as the employee was only seeking his prayer for pension. 3. The impugned judgment was passed on 31.07.2024 and certified copy of the same was applied on same day, which was supplied to the office of Advocate General and the same was received in the office of appellant No.2-Deputy Director, HPPWD, Shimla on 11.09.2024. The matter was thereafter forwarded to the office of Superintending Engineer, HP.PWD, 5th Circle Palampur for supplying the requisite record and the record was supplied by the office of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharamshala on 18.10.2024. The Government examined the matter on 20.12.2024 and thereafter justification given was that there was case of Roop Lal pending before the Apex Court and the advice of the 3 2025:HHC:44241 ) Government was only conveyed by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Dharamshala on 5.3.2025, after the period of over two months. Thereafter, the matter was referred for vetting of the draft LPA, which was received in the office of appellant No.2 on 26.5.2025, i.e., again after the period of over three months and the Government again gave its advice to file LPA on 23.8.2025, i.e., again after a period of three months. The said advice was then conveyed to the office of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Dharamshala vide letter dated 30.08.2025. Thereafter, the office of Superintending Engineer, HPPWD 5th Circle, Palampur has re-referred the draft LPA for its vetting on 15.9.2025, which was vetted on 15.9.2025 itself. This has led to the delay in filing the appeal, which was only filed on 7.10.2025. It is in such circumstances that the delay is sought to be condoned. 4. As noticed, there is large gaps on at least two occasions on three months each, which has not been really explained and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is negligence, as such, and inaction on the part of the State, which would set the law in motion, as laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2010) 5 SCC 459 that there has to be valid reason to condone the delay and 4 2025:HHC:44241 ) if there is no plausible and tangible explanations for the long delays, the same is not to be condoned. 5. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment in Maniben Devraj Shah Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157 that vesting of certain rights take place to the litigants, which have to be kept in mind before condoning the delay. 6. As noticed, it is a work inspector agitating for his pensionary rights, which is the subject matter of consideration and who had worked for the State from the year 1984 and was given work charge status in the year 1995 and had retired from service on 28.02.2004. At this stage again, to put him through another round of litigation would be highly unjustified and unfair after the State has lapsed as such in pursuing the remedy. The State’s apparent modus operandi to get the certificate from this Court for its own inaction has already been depreciated by the Apex Court time and again while giving the nomenclature of “certificate cases” and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down and elaborated in Esha Bhattarcharjee Vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 would be directly applicable to be facts and circumstances of this case and, therefore, we do not deem it fit to condone the inordinate delay. As such the instant application, i.e., CMP(M) 5 2025:HHC:44241 ) No.2087 of 2025 is dismissed. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice December 12, 2025 (mamta) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge