1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.577 of 2026 Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Appellants Versus Surinder Kumar …… 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 Appellants : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejassvi Dogra, Advocate, for the State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present time barred appeal by 01 year and 73 days is filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No.8168 of 2023, decided on 05.12.2024, whereby, directions were issued that the writ petitioner would be deemed to have been appointed on compassionate ground on contract basis from the date of his initial appointment on daily wage basis and he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. 2. The application for condonation of delay does not show any sufficient cause by the State, rather it goes on to show that the State claims it is totally unaware, as to what is the procedure to be followed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 against the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and whether the matter is to be agitated before Letters Patent Bench or by filing the Special Leave to Appeal directly before the Apex Court. 3. We have come across cases, time and again, where after two years, the matter is withdrawn before the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground that the appeal would lie before this Court. This is one of those classic cases also. Apparently, the judgment dated 05.12.2024 was made available to the respondents by the writ petitioner himself vide representation dated 17.01.2025. The application itself shows that after one month the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra on 17.02.2025 wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. On receipt of the same, the opinion of the Finance Department was conveyed to the said Officer. 4. The application is silent as to what was the opinion of the Finance Department and on what date it was given. Thereafter, there was an inordinate inaction on behalf of the appellants and after five months on 09.07.2025, the Deputy Commissioner again wrote to the said Officer requesting to decide the matter, as to whether the judgment should be assailed or not. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter received another communication after a period of another five months on 17.12.2025, wherein opinion was given by the Law Department and the Department of Personnel and Finance (Expenditure) Department to take steps to file Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court without any delay. The relevant Paragraph in the application reads as follows:- 3 “5. That in response to the communication dated 09.07.2025 the applicant-Deputy Commissioner received another communication dated 17.12.2025 wherein opinions of Law Department, the Department of Personnel and the Finance (Expenditure) Department were also reproduced. It was advised to take immediate steps to file SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court without any delay.” 5. Resultantly, on 05.01.2026 the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra wrote communication to the District Attorney, Himachal Pradesh Legal Cell, Himachal Bhawan, New Delhi to prepare and file Special Leave Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking appropriate steps. Thereafter, he was rightly advised vide communication dated 03.02.2026, to file the Letters Patent Appeal at the first instance, as directly filing Special Leave to Appeal would not be advisable. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra on 17.02.2026 intimated the advice of the District Attorney to the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and was then informed that the Contempt Petition (COPC No.44 of 2026) had already been filed for implementation of the judgment. It is in such circumstances, the delay of 01 year 73 days, as such, is sought to be condoned, as per the averments in the application. 6. The Apex Court has, time and again held that inordinate delay on account of negligent attitude of the Department would give an indefeasible right as such to the litigant. The present case is also one where on two occasions of five months, there is no explanation and follow up by the State Government and the unexplained cause is that the Law & 4 Personnel Department had advised to file Special Leave Petition. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation and sufficient cause sought to be made out, on the face of it, is not liable to the accepted. 7. It is settled which the Senior Counsel also could not controvert the fact that Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable before this Court and are being filed day in and day out and there was no question, as such for the Department at the highest level to opine that the matter should be taken by way of Special Leave to Appeal directly against the judgment of learned Single Judge. 8. Reliance can thus be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, wherein it has been held that the vesting of certain rights on the litigants has to be kept in mind before condoning the delay. 9. It is not disputed that there is a life span for each legal remedy as has been expounded, time and again by the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459 and in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693. 10. The principle has been further elaborated in Chief Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein it has been held that the Department cannot take advantage of its own impersonal machinery and they have to 5 perform the duty with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception, which view was also taken in Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649. 11. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the State is always handicapped and his hands are tied at its back by filing appeals but the law as such by the Apex Court is that a certain latitude is to be given, but in the present case, the averments made in the application do not give us any reason to grant that latitude. Counsel has tried to take us to the merits of the case, but we are of the considered opinion and as per the settled law that once there is no sufficient cause, the Court ought not to consider the case on merits as otherwise it will frustrate the whole purpose if the matter has to be examined on merits and then a decision has to be taken on the application of sufficient cause, it would be a contradiction in itself. 12. Recently 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, has 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 Department, as such, cannot keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period. 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 6 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.” 13. In Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.54941/2025, titled State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, the appeal had been filed after 08 years and the Apex Court accordingly keeping in view the law laid down in G. Ramegowda vs. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst Katiji (1997) 2 SCC 107, dismissed the 7 appeal as barred by time. The Apex Court has held that the State is in a habit as such of filing belated appeals and getting certificates from the Courts that the litigation has become final and they have been termed as certificate cases. 14. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no case made out for condoning the delay in view of the sufficient cause which is sought to be shown. Resultantly, we dismiss the application and the appeal also. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) April 23, 2026 (KS) Judge