2026:HHC:3225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No.2387 of 2025 & LPA No.18 of 2026 Decided on: 07 th January, 2026 _____________________________________________________ State of H.P. and others ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand ...Non-applicant/Respondent ______________________________________________________ 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 applicants/appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.3977 of 2019 titled Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 12.12.2024. 2. As per the State, the appeal is barred by 256 days, whereas it is barred by 284 days, as per the Registry. 3. Apparently, when the certified copy of the judgment was received on 14.01.2025, the matter was taken up with the Government on 13.02.2025 for further directions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. A bald averment is made that the Government took a decision regarding re-structuring of the Education Department and during the process of re-structuring, the record was shifted from one place to another, therefore, the delay took place. The vetting as such only took place on 10.10.2025 and therefore there is no justification for the period from 18.03.2025, when the advice was given to file the LPA, until the actual filing on 12.11.2025. 5. The only explanation offered is that the major part of the period for filing the appeal was consumed in correspondence and examining the case at various levels, which again is in contradiction to the plea that the file had been misplaced due to the re-structuring of the Education Department. 6. Keeping in view the settled principles as such laid down by the Apex Court time and again, even though the Department can take some benefit of its impersonal machinery, but there has to be a lifespan for each legal remedy. In the absence of any plausible and tangible explanation for such a long delay, there would be no valid reason to condone the delay. The principles as such have been laid down and reference can be made to the judgment passed in Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, which reads as under:- 3 “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” 4 7. Even otherwise, it is to be noticed on merits that the learned Single Judge had relied upon a judgment passed in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled Villam Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 07.04.2016, which formed the basis of seeking the necessary relief in the present case by the writ petitioner, and which had been appended along with the writ petition. 8. In Villam Singh’s case the LPA had also been dismissed on the ground of limitation and that order was further upheld. 9. In such circumstances, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no plausible reason is made out to condone the delay. Resultantly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and the appeal is also dismissed accordingly. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 07 th January, 2026 (ankit) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Judge