2026:HHC:8206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 2370 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.03.2026 State of H. P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Tara Chand …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is barred by 1 year 125 days against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1359 of 2024, titled as Tara Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 25.07.2024. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the analogy that it was covered by the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019, titled as Sant Ram & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which was decided on 06.09.2022 and was upheld in LPA No. 153 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Sant Ram & Anr., decided on 07.10.2023. 3. It is not disputed that the said LPA was subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 1858 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Sant Ram and Anr. and was 2 2026:HHC:8206 clubbed alongwith Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani, decided on 06.02.2025. 4. The State had also filed a review by filing IA Nos. 137848/25 and 137850/25 before the Apex Court and was unsuccessful and the Apex Court did not open the said proceedings and thus the order has become final. The review was dismissed on 03.02.2023,. 5. The facts are briefly referred to for the convenience of the Court because in view of the law laid down in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs. & Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, while deciding the application for condonation delay, the brief reference to the facts is necessary. Since the issue has already been settled up to the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to allow the case whereby the relief was sought for regularization of service on completion of 8 years as per policy on daily wage with all consequential benefits of back- wages, pay-scale would necessarily not be liable to be interfered with since the Apex Court in Surajmani’s case has also only modified it to the extent that notional benefits have to be granted for work charged employees. 6. The perusal of the writ petition would also go on to show that the petitioner was working under the Kandi Project way back in the year, 1991 and in such circumstances he has put 3 2026:HHC:8206 in 33 years of service when he filed the writ petition and sought the relief of regularization on completion of 8 years of service. 7. The perusal of the delay application would go on to show that judgment was passed on 25.07.2024 and copy of the same was applied on 19.09.2024 and duly supplied on 26.09.2024. There is no reference to the said judgment being applied before filing the application for condonation of delay and justification is only made that similar cases were decided between the period 06.08.2024 to 19.07.2025, which were 20 in number and it was only when all the matters were being analysed on the website, it came to the notice of the appellant that the present case had been disposed of, which is in contradiction to the fact that the certified copy had already been applied and supplied a year earlier. 8. Therefore, we do not find any plausible reason as such to condone the delay once the department was having certified copy but chose not to file the appeal within the prescribed period or at the earliest. It has only woken up a year later in July, 2025 and filing was thereafter done and the draft LPA was prepared on 11.11.2025 and eventually filed on 28.11.2025. 9. Thus, in absence of sufficient cause being shown, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of 4 2026:HHC:8206 Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 would come to the help of the writ petitioner. Certain vested rights have come in to play and the State cannot have a unfettered freedom as such to file the appeals at its own convenience. 10. Resultantly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and the main appeal is also accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 19th March, 2026(sanjeev) Judge