Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16719 (HP)

State of HP v. Monika Thakur

2026-02-27

Bipin Chander Negi, G S Sandhawalia

body2026
JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. The present appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.09.2023, whereby 18 writ petitions were disposed of, the lead case of which was CWP No. 787 of 2022, titled as Mohit Lath & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 2. The State had initially filed only three Letters Patent Appeals against the said order, which were barred by limitation. 3. The application for condonation of delay for condoning the appeal in Mohit Lath’s case was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench, since delay was there of 213 days in filing the appeal and it was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that the Law Department had advised against filing the appeal, but the Personnel Department had insisted on the Finance Department to file the appeal and after about seven months of the date of the order and the date of receipt of the same, the Council of Ministers insisted to file the appeal. 4. Apparently, the State has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22733/2024 against the aforesaid order in Mohit Lath’s case before the Apex Court, whereby the implementation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge had been stayed on 04.10.2024. 5. On 10.12.2025, when one of the CMP(M)s, i.e. CMP(M) No. 2055 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others Vs. Monika Thakur & others, was listed before this Court, the following order was passed:- “From the perusal of the file, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has decided as many as 18 cases, lead case being CWP No. 787 of 2022, titled Mohit Lath and others and State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The appeal filed by the State i.e. CMP(M) No. 1111 of 2024, being time barred was dismissed on 06.08.2024, against which an SLP(C) No. 22733 of 2024 is stated to be pending before the Apex Court, whereby, the implementation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge has been stayed on 04.10.2024 [Annexure A/VII]. It is now pointed out that ten more appeals have been filed in the balance cases and also one consolidated appeal along with an application for permission regarding the other left out cases has been filed. Necessary details be given and be supplied to the office, so that all the appeals can be tagged together.” 6. It is now pointed out that ten more appeals have been filed in the balance cases and also one consolidated appeal along with an application for permission regarding the other left out cases has been filed. Necessary details be given and be supplied to the office, so that all the appeals can be tagged together.” 6. Today, nine separate appeals, i.e. CMP (M) Nos. 2055 of 2025, 2084 of 2025, 2286 of 2025, 2293 of 2025, 2316 of 2025, 2317 of 2025, 2318 of 2025, 2344 of 2025 & 2362 of 2025 have been listed, which are barred by 1 year 285 days, 2 years 2 months, 1 year 314 days, 1 year 360 days, 1 year 347 days, 1 year 361 days, 2 years, 1 year 325 days and 1 year 322 days, respectively. 7. A separate application bearing CMPST No. 69709 of 2025 has been filed in CMP(M) No. 2362 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & others VS. Vijay Kumar & others, for joint hearing of other appeals, whereby the delay of 688 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned. 8. The contents of the aforesaid application are interesting that the present set of appeals have been filed on account of the observations made on 10.12.2025 in Monika Thakur’s case, (supra) and in view of the issue which came up before the Apex Court as to whether other SLP(s) have been filed in the connected cases, which apparently led to the filing of the present appeals. 9. Reasoning given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in Vijay Kumar’s case is that the Department was apparently unaware that the separate appeals were required to be filed in each case. In such circumstances, the application dated 06.12.2025 for joint hearing of all the appeals, had been filed. The relevant part of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, reads as under:- “2. That there had been delay of about 689 days in filing the Letter Patent Appeal due to the fact that long process of official channels was to be exhausted before the Appeal and this official process has caused delay in filing Appeal which was beyond the control of the applicants/ appellants and the Letter Patent Appeal could not be filed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of judgment. 3. 3. That the matter was taken up with the Law Department on dated 01.11.2023 as to whether the Judgment dated 25.09.2023 may be implemented or assailed further and the Law Department vide dated 18.11.2023 raised certain queries which were addressed vide dated 15.12.2023 and vide dated 03.01.2024 opined that the Judgment dated 25.09.2023 needs no further agitation. 4. That accordingly, the matter was taken up with Finance Department for concurrence on dated 01.05.2024 when after examining the same the Finance Department on dated 13.05.2024 advised to revert the matter after seeking opinion from Personnel Department. 5. Accordingly, the matter was taken up with Personnel Department on 15.05.2024 for its opinion, whereby the Personnel Department on 18.05.2024 advised to examine the repercussions of implementing the judgment in question at its own level, and take appropriate decision with the prior approval of the competent authority. 6. Subsequently, the matter with regard to regularization of the category of respondents was placed before the Council of Ministers on 18.06.2024 for consideration and decision, wherein, it has been decided to assail the judgment dated 25.09.2023. 7. In compliance to the decision of Council of Ministers, LPA filing No. 27551/2024 in CWP No. 787/2022 titled as Mohit Lath & Ors. Vs. State of H.P & Ors assailing judgment dated 25.09.2023 was e-filed on 15.07.2024. 8. Subsequently, CMP(M) No. 1111/2024 was listed on 30.07.2024 when the judgment was reserved and was pronounced on 06.08.2024. 9. Feeling aggrieved, SLP was e-filed on 20.09.2024 and Special Leave to Appeal (C) bearing No. 22733 of 2024 was listed on 04.10.2024 whereby, it was ordered that in the meanwhile implementation of the directions issued by Ld. Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court shall remain stayed (Annexure A-VII). 10. That the Ld. Single Judge disposed of 18 writ Petitions vide common judgment dated 25.9.2023 titled as Mohit Lath & ors. Vs State of H.P & ors. (CWP No. 787/2022). The Appellants filed LPA in 3 Cases i.e. :- i) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Mohit Lath & ors. CMP (M) No.1111 /2024-Decided òn 6.8.2024. ii) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Shammi Bhatti- CMP (M) NO. 924/2024 decided on 6.8.2024 and iii) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Pankaj Rana CMP (M) No 1070/2024 decided on 6.8.2024. 11. The Appellants filed LPA in 3 Cases i.e. :- i) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Mohit Lath & ors. CMP (M) No.1111 /2024-Decided òn 6.8.2024. ii) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Shammi Bhatti- CMP (M) NO. 924/2024 decided on 6.8.2024 and iii) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Pankaj Rana CMP (M) No 1070/2024 decided on 6.8.2024. 11. That during the pendency of SLP titled as State of H.P & others Vs Mohit Lath & ors, a Counter Affidavit was filed by Respondents in December, 2024 that the petitioners (Present appellants) have not filed SLP’s in other (15 writ Petitions) of the common judgment dated 25.09.2023. 12. That accordingly comments/information was supplied to AOR on 21st January, 2025. 13. That for filing Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of Appellants (Petitioner in SLP) more information so sought was provided in February 2025/May 2025 to AOR. 14. After detailed deliberations, with Ld. Advocate General and AOR in September, 2025, respective LPAs have been opined to be filed. It is submitted that the delay in filing of LPA is not intentional rather it has come to the knowledge of the Department only on receiving the Legal Opinion from Ld. Advocate General that separate LPA for each CWP is legally required to be filed despite the fact that the common Judgment dated 25.09.2023 in CWP No. 787/2022 titled as Mohit Lath ors. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. has been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 04.10.2024 in the matter- Special Leave to Appeal (C) bearing No. 22733 of 2024 titled as State of H.P. & ors. Vs. Mohit Lath & ors.” 10. Thus, apparently from the above, it would be crystal clear that the initial SLP was filed on 20.09.2024, but no action has been taken to file the appeal in the present case and only when counter had to be filed before the Apex Count in September, 2025, a decision was taken to file the appeals. The State has remained totally inactive and not interested and the right term would be ‘negligent’. 11. The law has been settled in various judgments passed by the Apex Court that once there is inaction, there are certain vested rights to the litigants. 12. Learned Counsel for the State has tried to convince us that the matters should be kept pending, since these matters are pending before the Apex Court. 13. 11. The law has been settled in various judgments passed by the Apex Court that once there is inaction, there are certain vested rights to the litigants. 12. Learned Counsel for the State has tried to convince us that the matters should be kept pending, since these matters are pending before the Apex Court. 13. We are of the considered opinion that it is high time that the State should realize the seriousness of issue of litigation. It was always open to the State to file a joint appeal at the first instance, not only to save the costs as such for filing separate Letters Patents Appeals, by impleding all the respondents and by amending the memo of parties, not only to cut the costs, but also to save its administrative costs which this Court incurs on entertaining a large number of appeals in bunch matters. However, the State functions in its own manner, on which we do not wish to comment. 14. Resultantly, keeping in view the settled principles of law already laid down by the Apex Court and also quoted by the earlier Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 06.08.2024, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in Mohit Lath’s case, we can only add another precedent to the said judgment. 15. Recently, in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 54941 of 2025, titled as State of Odisha & others Vs. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, the Apex Court vide its order dated 09.02.2026, has held that once the State has been lethargic, tardy and indolent, the latitude is not to be shown to the State to condone the delay, while referring to the earlier judgments, including the judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 where a lenient view was taken. 16. As noticed, the view was that each and every day’s delay is not to be explained, but in principle, sufficient cause has to be shown. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 where a lenient view was taken. 16. As noticed, the view was that each and every day’s delay is not to be explained, but in principle, sufficient cause has to be shown. But in the present case, as noticed, there is a total inaction on the part of the State, which would be clear from the contents of the application, which have been reproduced above, wherein it was pointed out that the Department was unaware as to whether appeals have to be filed or not, and only when before the Apex Court objection was raised, decision was taken to file the appeals. 17. In such circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the applications for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeals also face the same consequence. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.