1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No.126 of 2026 & LPA No.153 of 2026 Decided on: 19.03.2026 State of H.P & ors. ....Applicants Versus Gulzari Lal & anr. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : None G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2992 of 2019 titled as Gulzari Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. and is barred by 647 days. Learned Single Judge has directed that the benefits of pension be extended to the petitioner, who is a Mason, on the analogy of the judgment passed in LPA No.196 of 2022 titled as Roop Lal Vs State of H.P & ors. 2. It is not disputed that SLP No.1007 of 2024 titled as State of H.P Vs Roop Lal was dismissed on 18.03.2025. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Resultantly, directions were issued to grant the benefits of pension within one month keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was engaged on daily basis in the year 1987 and was regularized on 01.01.1997 and retired from the services on 31.08.2006. 3. We find from the record that the petitioner has rendered 9 years and 8 months service in Class-III post and prior to that, he rendered 10 years service on daily wages. 4. As such, the matter is covered and we do not find any plausible reason to condone the delay, which has not been sufficiently explained. The impugned judgment was passed on 11.01.2024 and certified copy of the judgment was applied on 16.01.2024. The copy of the judgment was received in the office of appellant No.2 on 28.2.2024. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was examined and rejected by the appellants on 27.07.2024 on account of the fact that SLP was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Lal. 5. Apparently, no effort was made to file the LPA, rather at that point of time, it is not disputed that even the Execution Petition filed by the writ petitioner bearing No.733 of 2025 was listed before the Court on 26.09.2025, when the appellants were directed to implement the impugned judgment and on failure, their property was directed to be attached. It is only at that point of time, they have woken up as such and the claim of the respondent has been considered and adhered through speaking order. LPA was thereafter 3 prepared on 03.11.2025 and was received in the office of appellant No.2 on 06.11.2025 and submitted for filing and eventually filed on 09.12.2025. The delay thus remained unexplained from 28.02.2024 till filing of the Execution Petition in the year 2025 and only after 26.09.2025, the State took some action to comply with the said judgment but continues to file the present appeal and, therefore, no plausible reason as such is made out to condone the delay. Even otherwise now, the justification that the matter was pending before the Apex Court no longer survives as the judgment in Roop Lal’s case had already been upheld on 18.03.2025. 6. Merely on the account of review being filed, which is now stated to have been dismissed on 06.02.2026, no valid reason as such was there for the State not to file LPA within the time prescribed or at least within reasonable period. 7. The Apex Court has time and again come down heavily on the State Authorities, whereby it chooses to file the appeal at a belated stage and attempting to take away the vested right which have accrued upon the writ petitioner. 8. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459, Chief Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and the principle laid down in 4 Esha Bhattachargee vs. Managing 4 Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. 9. Thus, keeping in view the above facts that the appellants cannot be given total unfettered free play and its conduct and behavior and negligent attitude which are relevant factors which have to be taken into consideration. Though the State authorities is always given some latitude but it does not have a right as such to file appeals at a belated stage without showing sufficient cause. 10. In Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, titled H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since deceased by LRs, decided on 08.01.2025, it has been held that 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. Only, if the sufficient cause has been assigned by the litigant and it is the Court which owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation and in such circumstances, the limitation has to be condoned. 11. Having examined the record as such in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not been able to make out the case for condonation of delay on account of its own deficiency. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the present appeal also stands dismissed. 5 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice March 19, 2026 (mamta) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge