Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Himachal vs Roshan Lal on 22 October, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Sabina
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
.
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MAIN) No.340 of 2021
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.51 of 2021
Between:-
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, THROUGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(FORESTS) TO THE GOVT. OF
H.P. SHIMLA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, JOGINDERNAGAR
FOREST DIVISION,
JOGINDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. ....APPELLANTS
(BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL AND MS. SEEMA
SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
AND
SH. ROSHAN LAL,
SON OF SH. CHHANGA,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DEODHAR,
POST OFFICE JHATINGRI,
TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P. ....RESPONDENT
(BY SH. RAHUL MAHAJAN,
ADVOCATE)
_____________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:13:06 :::CIS
2
This Civil Miscellaneous Application (Main) coming on
for orders this day, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina, passed the
following:
.
ORDER
CMP(M) No.340 of 2021 and LPA No.51 of 2021.
The State has filed this appeal, alongwith an application
for condonation of delay in filing the main appeal, bearing
No.CMP(M) No.340 of 2021, challenging the order dated
10.01.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.424 of
2016, titled State of H.P. and another versus Roshan Lal, whereby
the writ petition filed by the appellants-State, was dismissed.
2. There is a delay of one year, eleven months and twenty
one days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
3. We have heard Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the appellants-State and Mr. Rahul Mahajan,
learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the
record available on the file, carefully.
4. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,
has submitted that learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the
writ petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.01.2018,
passed by learned Single Judge, reveals that the parties had jointly
stated before learned Single Judge that the matter in issue stands
decided by this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2016, passed in
CWP No.1587 of 2016, titled State of H.P. and another versus Biri
Singh and another and the Civil Writ Petition No.424 of 2016 filed by
the State, was liable to be disposed of in terms of the order passed
.
in Biri Singh's case (supra). Consequently, the writ petition was
dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.01.2018 and
the order dated 30.06.2015, passed by the Labour Court-cum-
Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala, was upheld.
6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for
the respondent has brought to our notice that the appeal, alongwith
an application for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent
Appeal, filed by the State, challenging the decision in Biri Singh's
case (supra), has been disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2021,
passed in CMP(M) No.217 of 2018. The said appeal had been
dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
7. A perusal of the order dated 23.04.2021, passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in CMP(M) No.217 of 2018, titled State
and another versus Biri Singh & another, reveals that the
application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was
dismissed. Observations were also made on the merits of the case.
The operative part of the said order dated 23.04.2021, is reproduced
herein below:-
"11. We have gone through the contents of
the application for condonation of delay.
Although the movement of file has been
mentioned but there is no satisfactory
explanation that why the department took such
a long route before arriving at a final decision to
challenge the said award. If such an approach
is accepted, then there would be no end to any
.
limitation. Thus, we are not satisfied with the
explanation offered to condone the delay and
on this ground, we dismiss the instant
application. Another reason for dismissal of the
application is that similar placed persons have
been granted benefits.
12. A perusal of paragraph No.17 of the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge
reveals that one Shyam Singh, who was junior
to the respondent, was regularized by counting
his seniority from the date of his first
appointment and as such, similar relief has also
to be afforded to the employee.
13. Given the dismissal of the delay
application, no order is required to be passed in
the unregistered LPA. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of."
8. In the present case, also there is a delay of one year,
eleven months and twenty one days in filing the appeal. The reason
given in the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal, is that the delay had occurred on account of movement of
file from one office to another.
9. The present matter was disposed of by learned Single
Judge, vide order dated 10.01.2018, in view of the submissions
made by the parties to the effect that that it was covered by the
decision given in Biri Singh's case (supra). The appeal filed by the
State in Biri Singh's case, alongwith an application for condonation
of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, bearing No.CMP(M)
.
No.217 of 2018, has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 23.04.2021, on the ground of delay.
10. Under these circumstances, the present application,
seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as the
Letters Patent Appeal, are liable to be disposed of, in terms of the
aforesaid order dated 23.04.2021, passed in Biri Singh's case
(supra). Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any, shall stand disposed of.
( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
( Sabina )
October 22, 2021 Judge
(Yashwant)
