Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 27Th May vs Madan Lal on 27 May, 2025

2025:HHC:16727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.796 of 2025 a/w LPA No:264 of 2025 Decided On : 27th May, 2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellants & Others

Versus

Madan Lal ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

Challenge in the present Letters Patent

Appeal is to the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by

learned Single Judge, in CWP No.4647 of 2020, titled

as Madan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh &

others. As per office noting, the said appeal is barred

by 326 days and thus resultantly application for

condonation of delay (CMP(M) No.796 of 2025) has also

been filed for condoning the delay of 324 days in filing the

appeal.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

                                -2-                   2025:HHC:16727


2.          Apparently,      the     appellants     were     never

interested in filing the present appeal, since the learned

Single Judge had only directed consideration of the case of

the writ petitioner that the department was to calculate

number of days he has put in from the month of January,

2011. If the petitioner fulfilled the criteria for conferment of

work charge status, having necessarily put in 8 years of

continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year

and thereafter if he had become eligible for conferment of

regularization as per policy of State Government, the

benefit was to be conferred upon him. It is also noticed

that the learned Single Judge did not grant the benefit of

service from 2003 onwards, as there was prayer for

condoning the shortage of days in each calendar year from

the said year and therefore, granted only restricted

consideration. The relevant portion of impugned order

reads as under:-

"7. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Department will calculate the number of days that have been put in by the petitioner as from the month of January, 2011 and in case he fulfills the criteria for conferment of work charge status having put in eight years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, then work charge status be conferred upon him and if he thereafter becomes eligible for conferment of regularization as per the Policy of the State

-3- 2025:HHC:16727

Government in vogue, then said benefit be also conferred upon him with consequential benefits. It is clarified that in case the petitioner is held entitled to the above mentioned reliefs, then as till the date of filing of the petition the monetary benefits accruing thereupon shall be notional and actual benefits shall accrue as from the date of filing of the Writ petition."

3. The State being bound by the said directions

therefore, passed the orders on 16th August, 2024 rejecting

the case of the writ petitioner by a speaking order which

has now been appended as Annexure A-III. The reasoning,

as such, primarily is that the work was done on bill basis

by the writ petitioner from April, 2011 till May, 2023 and

the bills had been prepared as item-wise lowest rates

quoted by petitioner and he had not worked on daily wage

basis while falling back upon the Notification dated

28.04.2009, issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh,

Forest Department [Annexure-VI].

4. Apparently, the writ petitioner filed contempt

petition i.e. COPC No.604 of 2024, seeking the compliance

of orders dated 07.05.2024 and the matter was listed on

16.10.2024, before the learned Single Judge and

respondents were also directed to file reply within three

weeks. The reply was then filed on 26.11.2024 and the

Court passed the following order on 12.12.2024.

-4- 2025:HHC:16727

" Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents on one hand has not implemented the judgment in issue and now have aggravated the contempt by taking a stand that the work charge status cannot be conferred upon the petitioner as for the period concerned he was serving on bill base basis. This Court is of the considered view that as the judgment is un-ambiguous as to on what basis the right of the petitioner to be conferred work charge status, was to be considered, the endeavour of the respondents to overreach the judgment indeed aggravates the contempt.

In terms of the judgment, this Court had issued a mandamus that if from the month of January, 2011, the petitioner had put in more than 240 days in each calendar year for a period of eight years, then work charge status was to be conferred upon the petitioner.

In the light of said direction, any other view that is being taken by the Authority obviously amounts to overreaching the judgment."

5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.01.2025

and 20.03.2025 before the learned Single Judge, and the

order passed was to seek instructions in terms of order

dated 12.12.2024. It is at that stage, the present

applicants-appellants decided to appeal against the said

order, which would be clear from the application for

condonation of delay as the certified copy had been applied

within three days from the date of impugned order i.e. on

10.05.2025 and the same had also been supplied on the

same day. At that point of time no effort had been made to

-5- 2025:HHC:16727

file the appeal as the applicants-appellants were satisfied

with the order of consideration which has been passed.

6. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

[HoFF], Himachal Pradesh examined the matter in

consultation with learned District Attorney [Forests] and

thereafter, on 11.04.2025 requested the Government to

examine the case and resultantly decision was taken on

05.05.2025 to file the LPA, which is clear from Annexure-

IV.

7. A perusal of the said communication which is

addressed from the Special Secretary [Forests] to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh, would go on to show

that there is no reference at all regarding consideration

already done on 16.08.2024. It is apparent, thus, only on

account of the observation of learned Single Judge on

12.12.2024 the State has been asked to seek instructions,

the decision to file the appeal had been taken. The inaction

is thus apparent or rather the compliance of the order was

to be done.

8. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd

versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and

another (2010) 5 SCC 459, it was held that law of

-6- 2025:HHC:16727

limitation is founded on public policy and resultantly the

appeal was allowed and the order condoning the delay as

such of four years in filing the appeal was set aside by

holding that in the absence of any plausible/tangible

explanation for long delay of more than four years in filing

of appeal, there was no valid reasons to condone the delay.

9. In Chief Postmaster General and others

versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3

SCC 563, the principles as such have been laid down that

the department could not take advantage of impersonal

machinery or the inherited bureaucratic methodology and

the law of limitation binds everybody including the

Government. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads

as under:-

"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

-7- 2025:HHC:16727

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."

10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered

opinion that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the

delay as the consideration has already been done and

accordingly, application for condonation of delay i.e.

CMP(M) No.796 of 2025, is dismissed.

11. Even otherwise, on merits, we are also of the

-8- 2025:HHC:16727

considered opinion that the consideration has been done

on the order dated 07.05.2024 and it is always open to the

appellants, as such, to justify, whether it was done

correctly or not before the learned Single Judge.

12. Thus, the principles laid down in Chief