1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.444 of 2026 Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 The State of Himachal Pradesh and others ……Applicants/ Appellants Versus Dr. Shekhar Sharma …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicants/Appellants : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) The present appeal, preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.12.2022, in CWPOA No.6997 of 2020 titled Dr. Shekhar Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others, is barred by 1137 days, as per the application, and 03 years 71 days as per the Certificate of the Office. 2. In the application for condonation of delay, the State itself has mentioned that it was found not to be a fit case to be agitated further. It is averred that the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 30.12.2025 and a direction was issued to frame a policy for consideration. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had filed a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contempt petition. In compliance to the order of the Court, the regular pay scale had also been granted to the petitioner way back on 23.07.2023. 3. As per the policy decision dated 28.03.2016, this Court was apprised that the order stands complied with by the Government. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with the same and thereafter, filed an execution petition bearing No.07 of 2024 for complying with the orders for conversion of his services from “RKS to Government Contract”. Even a rectification application [CMP(T) No.48 of 2025] was filed by the State, wherein, it was averred that some clerical error had crept in Para- 12 of the judgment dated 21.12.2022, passed in CWPOA No.6997 of 2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2025. Thereafter, another application [CMP(T) No.104 of 2025] was filed by the petitioner for recalling of order dated 05.03.2025, which was allowed vide order dated 23.06.2025 and order dated 05.03.2025 was recalled and application [CMP(T) No.48 of 2025] was restored to its original number. After restoration, vide order dated 10.09.2025, the original application [CMP(T) No.48 of 2025] filed by the State, was dismissed by learned Single Judge observing that there was no error in Para-12 of the judgment dated 21.12.2022, passed in CWPOA No.6997 of 2020. 4. It is not disputed that on 19.11.2025 (in Execution Petition No.07 of 2024), learned Advocate General had given his consent that the judgment shall be implemented, which reads as under:- “Learned Advocate General submits that the matter in issue was discussed with him and he has given his opinion for implementation of the judgment in issue in letter and spirit 3 as a measure personal to the petitioner. He submits that the case be listed after three weeks, so that in the interregnum, needful can be done.” 5. It has further been averred that the file had been submitted to the higher authority for approval. The respondents/State, on 20.02.2026 in consultation with the Law Department, decided to file an appeal in the appropriate higher forum and resultantly the matter was then processed and Letters Patent Appeal was drafted in the Office of learned Advocate General, which was vetted on 11.03.2026 and filed on 13.03.2026. 6. Perusal of the application would go on to show that in sum and substance, the State had itself decided not to file the appeal and it is only after three years, the matter was re-considered and it was decided to file the appeal, despite the undertaking of learned Advocate General that the judgment shall be implemented, in letter and spirit and the fact that he Law Department had opined that it is not a fit case to be agitated further. 7. In such circumstances, there is no sufficient cause made out even on reading of the application since the State has chosen not to take any proactive steps and decided not to file the appeal and only on account of the matter being placed before the Council of Ministers, the change of heart has occurred. The vested rights, as such, of the writ petitioner cannot be taken so lightly and casually as taken by the State. 8. 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 4 that in absence of any plausible and tangible explanation for long delay, there was no valid reason to condone the delay. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The life span of each legal remedy has been expounded in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy 2025 (2012) 12 SCC 693 and further elaborated in Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649. 12. 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. 13. 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 three years. 5 14. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it a fit case as such to condone the day. 15. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal has to necessarily follow the same fate. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) April 06, 2026 (KS) Judge