( 2025:HHC:38716 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.454 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 13.11.2025 Gitanand ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ....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?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition No.4568 of 2025 on 13.05.2025, titled Gitanand Vs. State of H.P. & another on the ground that the writ petition was filed after almost thirteen years against the Award dated 20.07.2012. 2. The justification given by the writ petitioner-present appellant was not accepted which had been averred in para-7 of the writ petition, which reads as under:- “That there is a delay of about 12 years in filing the present civil writ petition because of serious health 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 issues. The petitioner while discharging duties with respondent as JCB Operator suffered from Gangrene as he was performing duties on snow bound areas. The health record of the petitioner is annexed with this writ petition as Annexure P-5. Thus the petitioner prays for condoning the delay in filing the present writ petition due to his medical condition.” 3. The learned Single Judge held that it is neither mentioned in the aforesaid para of the writ petition that as to when the petitioner had suffered form Gangrene and he was so incapacitated that he could not have taken steps to assail the award. It was recorded that petitioner was visiting both Shimla as well as Ner Chowk, in District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh for his treatment and therefore did not think if fit to condone the delay in entertaining the writ petition. 4. On 13.08.2025, while issuing notice we had observed as under:- “Inter alia contends that the petitioner had been serving as JCB operator with the respondents in Udaipur Division, District Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh and served from September, 2005 till 25.08.2008 with the State. 2. It is submitted that his services were terminated on account of a punitive action, as per stand taken by the State itself, apparently without holding any proper inquiry. Another person namely Gurmeet Singh was appointed in his place on 28.07.2008. It is thus submitted that despite this, the Labour Court as such, did not grant any benefit and declined the reference on 20.07.2012. 3. The Writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches, keeping in view the fact that it has been filed in the year 2025. 3 4. It is thus submitted that the specific case as such is that after the declining of reference, he had suffered from gangrene while performing duties in a snow bound area and his medical records also show that there was debridement of the left limb. The procedure was carried out at Shimla and while referring to the scan (Color Doppler) which had been conducted on 29.11.2014, it is thus submitted that dismissal of the Writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, would not be justified. It is argued that the reply of the State had not been called for and the petitioner has given his younger days to the State at the cost of his health and the relief could have been modulated accordingly. 5. Notice. Mr. Gobind Korla, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 6. List on 23.09.2025.” 5. The Disability Certificate dated 15.09.2025 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital Mandi, Himachal Pradesh has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Keeping in view the background as such as noticed earlier and the fact that he was serving in remote areas of the State, which is snow bound for a period of at least six months and which is also remote tribal area, we are of the considered opinion, that in the writ jurisdiction it is the duty of the Court as such to reach out to the persons who are adversely affected and to see whether the challenge as such is first made to the Labour Court Award was justifiable. 4 7. The learned Single Judge could have called for the reply and passed the appropriate orders balancing both the interest of the State and element of the back-wages, if necessary but since the writ petition was dismissed at the initial stage, the present appellant is thus before us. 8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the observations that in case any relief is to be granted it can be balanced, keeping in view the delay which had occurred in the hands of the appellant as such. 9. In such circumstances, we deem it fit as such to set aside the order dated 13.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter for fresh decision on merits. Ordered accordingly. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 13th November, 2025 (munish thakur)