( 2026:HHC:35764 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 262 of 2026 Decided on: 21.08.2026 ____________________________________________________ HRTC and another ……….. applicants Versus Vipan Kumar ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the applicants : Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The applicants in case at hand feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed in CWP No. 6738 of 2024 titled Vipan Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another have preferred a review petition in the filing of which, there is a delay of 1 year and 20 days as per the applicants. The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the review petition. 2. As per the applicants in terms of the averments made in their application filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the review petition subsequent to passing of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 in CWP No. 6738 of 2024, the matter was forwarded to the head office on 17.09.2024. Apparently, in the forwarding of the case, there is a delay of approximately two months. Thereafter, as per the averments made in the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 application, a committee was constituted at the head office on 08.10.2024. The Committee had been constituted for screening the cases of drivers and conductors. The screening was completed in March 2025. 3. Hence, it is evident that in the constitution of the Committee post receipt of the matter in the head office, almost a month was taken. Post its constitution, the Committee took approximately 6 months to screen the cases of drivers and conductors. 4. Upon completion of the screening, 14 conductors and 5 drivers were found unfit for regularization. The entire file of the Committee was forwarded to the Managing Director for approval on 21.03.2025. The Managing Director, as per the averments made in the application filed for condonation of delay, raised queries with respect to financial implications of the proposed regularization. In this respect, the matter is stated to have been taken up with the State Government. It is finally on 21.06.2025 that a decision was taken to file a review petition in the case at hand. 5. Once the committee in March 2025, upon screening of cases of conductors and drivers had found 14 conductors and 5 drivers to be unfit for regularization, then in such cases action should have been initiated forthwith. Moreover in cases, where conductors, drivers were found unfit for regularization, there 3 would be no question of any financial implication. Hence, in such cases, there arose no occasion for taking up the matter with the State Government. The case of the review being made out against the respondent is one such case of an individual being found un-fit for regularization. 6. After having taken a decision on 21.06.2025 to file a review in the case at hand, the review was finally filed on 19.08.2025. The review is stated to have been prepared by the counsel on 30.07.2025 and thereafter necessary approvals for filing the review led to the filing of the same on 19.08.2025. The application for condonation of delay is duly supported by an affidavit filed by the Law Officer of the applicants-Corporation. 7. In the case at hand, from the facts narrated hereinabove as disclosed in the application seeking condonation of delay, it is evident that the impersonal machinery of the applicants-Corporation took its own sweet time to process the case in hand after passing of the judgement now sought to be reviewed. The applicants-Corporation cannot take advantage of its own impersonal machinery which has to perform its duty with diligence, commitment. The applicants-Corporation cannot be given a total unfettered free play to file review petition at any belated stage without showing sufficient cause. 8. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. The "sword of Damocles" 4 cannot be kept hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time. Vesting of rights on litigants have to be kept in mind before condoning delay. 9. Even though no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been found to have been made out by the applicants- corporation in filing of the review petition, however keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Union of India and another, (2023) 10 SCC 531, the merits of the case are being examined to find out as to whether it is a fit case to grant indulgence and condone the delay. (See CMP(M) No. 764 of 2026, decided on 20.05.2026 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Rajeev Kumar). 10. Normally, while deciding an application for condonation of delay, merits of the case are not to be gone into. Reference in this respect can be made to Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara vs. Labour Court (2009) 3 SCC 525 and Mool Chandra vs. Union of India (2025) 1 SCC 625. The merits of the matter can only be gone into once a bona fide explanation is offered/sufficient cause is assigned and opposition of the other side is equally balanced. In this respect, reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, titled as H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah since deceased by LRs, decided on 08.01.2025, 5 wherein it has been held that the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fide of the explanation offered and only if sufficient cause is assigned, then the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. The relevant Paragraph reads as under:- “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.” 11. Keeping in view the nature of litigation involved, the level at which the employee exists, i.e., a lowly paid conductor, and in such circumstances, to obviate any further unnecessary litigation, merits of the matter are being examined despite no sufficient cause having been made out for condonation of delay 6 12. In the judgment now sought to be reviewed, in the case at hand, dated 19.07.2024, the same had been passed when the counsel for the applicant-Corporation had conceded that the case of the present respondent is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Vikram Singh versus HRTC bearing CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020. 13. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, it has categorically been mentioned that the respondent in the case at hand had been engaged as a Conductor in the year 2004. It is now sought to be contended that the said appointment made in the year 2004 had been cancelled in the year 2006, and thereafter the respondent in the case at hand had been engaged afresh in 2006 itself. Thereafter, it is contended that appointment so made had yet again been terminated in June 2008, and the respondent herein was re-engaged in August 2008 on a fresh contract. Hence, based on the aforesaid, it is contended that the respondent herein cannot be considered to be an employee engaged in the year 2004. 14. The aforesaid plea being raised for review is without any merit. From the documents submitted on record, it is evident that on 22.06.2006 (page 70 of the paper book), a show cause notice had been issued to the present respondent. Thereafter, vide office order dated 13.07.2006, services of the respondent had ordered to be cancelled (page 72 of the paper book). 7 15. On a perusal of Annexure RP-7, page 74 of the paper book, i.e., office order dated 21.11.2006, it is evident that the appeal preferred against termination order dated 13.07.2006 had been set aside, the services of the respondent had been restored. Similarly, from perusal of Annexure RP-10, office order dated 30.06.2008 (page 91 of the paper book), it is evident that the contract of the respondent had been terminated. The said termination was set aside in appeal vide office order dated 01.08.2008, Annexure RP-12, (page 99 of the paper book) and the services of the respondent had been restored. 16. A perusal of both the orders passed in appeal, i.e., Annexure RP-7, (page 74 of the paper book) office order dated 21.11.2006, and Annexure RP-12, office order dated 01.08.2008, (page 99 of paper book), categorically record a finding that the cancellation of the contract agreement by the Divisional Manager on both occasions was not justified. 17. On allowing of both the appeals, the respondent’s initial contract entered into in the year 2004 stood revived. Hence, the contention that the respondent herein was an employee engaged in the year 2008 and not 2004, and hence, not covered by the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020, titled Vikram Singh versus HRTC, dated 09.11.2023, is without any merit. Hence, even on merit, the applicant does not have a case. 8 18. Since no case has been made out by the applicants- Corporation for condonation of delay, hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, review petition is also dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 21st August, 2026 Tarun Singh