[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Hp & Others vs Monika Thakur & Others on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:HHC:4976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
.
CMP(M) 2055 of 2025 a/w
LPA No. 77 of 2026 & other
connected matters.
Date of decision: 27.02.2026
________________________________________________________
1.
of
CMP(M) No. 2055 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 77 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
rt Versus
Monika Thakur & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________
2. CMP(M) No. 2316 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 78 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Upender Kumar & others ...Respondents
________________________________________________________
3. CMP(M) No. 2286 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 79 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Rahul Kumar & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________
4. CMP(M) No. 2293 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 80 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Shashi Pal ...Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS
2
.
5. CMP(M) No. 2344 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 81 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Atul Bhardwaj & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________
of
6. CMP(M) No. 2362 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 82 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
rt Versus
Vijay Kumar & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________
7. CMP(M) No. 2284 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 83 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Ashish Kumar & others ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
8. CMP(M) No. 2318 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 84 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Akash Walia & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________
9. CMP(M) No. 2317 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 85 of 2026
State of HP & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Vikas Thakur ...Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS
3
_________________________________________________________
.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________________
For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional
Advocate General.
of
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
rt The present appeals are directed against the
order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.09.2023,
whereby 18 writ petitions were disposed of, the lead case
of which was CWP No. 787 of 2022, titled as Mohit Lath
& others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
2. The State had initially filed only three Letters
Patent Appeals against the said order, which were barred
by limitation.
3. The application for condonation of delay for
condoning the appeal in Mohit Lath's case was
dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench, since delay was
there of 213 days in filing the appeal and it was observed
by the Co-ordinate Bench that the Law Department had
advised against filing the appeal, but the Personnel
Department had insisted on the Finance Department to
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
file the appeal and after about seven months of the date
.
of the order and the date of receipt of the same, the
Council of Ministers insisted to file the appeal.
4. Apparently, the State has preferred Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22733/2024 against the aforesaid
of
order in Mohit Lath's case before the Apex Court,
whereby the implementation of the directions issued by
the learned Single Judge had been stayed on 04.10.2024.
rt
5. On 10.12.2025, when one of the CMP(M)s, i.e.
CMP(M) No. 2055 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal
Pradesh & others Vs. Monika Thakur & others, was
listed before this Court, the following order was passed:-
"From the perusal of the file, it transpires that
the learned Single Judge has decided as many
as 18 cases, lead case being CWP No. 787 of
2022, titled Mohit Lath and others and State of
Himachal Pradesh and others. The appeal filed
by the State i.e. CMP(M) No. 1111 of 2024,
being time barred was dismissed on
06.08.2024, against which an SLP(C) No.
22733 of 2024 is stated to be pending before
the Apex Court, whereby, the implementation
of the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge has been stayed on 04.10.2024
[Annexure A/VII]. It is now pointed out that ten
more appeals have been filed in the balance
cases and also one consolidated appeal along
with an application for permission regarding
the other left out cases has been filed.
Necessary details be given and be supplied to
.
the office, so that all the appeals can be
tagged together."
6. Today, nine separate appeals, i.e. CMP (M)
Nos. 2055 of 2025, 2084 of 2025, 2286 of 2025, 2293 of
of
2025, 2316 of 2025, 2317 of 2025, 2318 of 2025, 2344 of
2025 & 2362 of 2025 have been listed, which are barred
rt
by 1 year 285 days, 2 years 2 months, 1 year 314 days,
1 year 360 days, 1 year 347 days, 1 year 361 days,
2 years, 1 year 325 days and 1 year 322 days,
respectively.
7. A separate application bearing CMPST No.
69709 of 2025 has been filed in CMP(M) No. 2362 of
2025, titled as State of H.P. & others VS. Vijay
Kumar & others, for joint hearing of other appeals,
whereby the delay of 688 days in filing the appeal is
sought to be condoned.
8. The contents of the aforesaid application are
interesting that the present set of appeals have been
filed on account of the observations made on 10.12.2025
in Monika Thakur's case, (supra) and in view of the
issue which came up before the Apex Court as to whether
other SLP(s) have been filed in the connected cases,
.
which apparently led to the filing of the present appeals.
9. Reasoning given in the application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal in Vijay
Kumar's case is that the Department was apparently
of
unaware that the separate appeals were required to be
filed in each case. In such circumstances, the application
dated 06.12.2025 for joint hearing of all the appeals, had
rt
been filed. The relevant part of the application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal, reads as
under:-
"2. That there had been delay of about
689 days in filing the Letter Patent Appeal due
to the fact that long process of official
channels was to be exhausted before the
Appeal and this official process has caused
delay in filing Appeal which was beyond the
control of the applicants/ appellants and the
Letter Patent Appeal could not be filed within
a period of one month from the date of receipt
of judgment.
3. That the matter was taken up with the
Law Department on dated 01.11.2023 as to
whether the Judgment dated 25.09.2023 may
be implemented or assailed further and the
Law Department vide dated 18.11.2023 raised
certain queries which were addressed vide
dated 15.12.2023 and vide dated 03.01.2024
opined that the Judgment dated 25.09.2023
needs no further agitation.
.
4. That accordingly, the matter was taken
up with Finance Department for concurrence
on dated 01.05.2024 when after examining
the same the Finance Department on dated
13.05.2024 advised to revert the matter after
seeking opinion from Personnel Department.
of
5. Accordingly, the matter was taken up
with Personnel Department on 15.05.2024 for
its opinion, whereby the Personnel
Department
rt on 18.05.2024 advised to
examine the repercussions of implementing
the judgment in question at its own level, and
take appropriate decision with the prior
approval of the competent authority.
6. Subsequently, the matter with regard
to regularization of the category of
respondents was placed before the Council of
Ministers on 18.06.2024 for consideration and
decision, wherein, it has been decided to
assail the judgment dated 25.09.2023.
7. In compliance to the decision of
Council of Ministers, LPA filing No. 27551/2024
in CWP No. 787/2022 titled as Mohit Lath &
Ors. Vs. State of H.P & Ors assailing judgment
dated 25.09.2023 was e-filed on
15.07.2024.
8. Subsequently, CMP(M) No. 1111/2024
was listed on 30.07.2024 when the judgment
was reserved and was pronounced on
06.08.2024.
9. Feeling aggrieved, SLP was e-filed on
20.09.2024 and Special Leave to Appeal (C)
bearing No. 22733 of 2024 was listed on
04.10.2024 whereby, it was ordered that in
.
the meanwhile implementation of the
directions issued by Ld. Single Judge of
Hon'ble High Court shall remain stayed
(Annexure A-VII).
10. That the Ld. Single Judge disposed of
18 writ Petitions vide common judgment
of
dated 25.9.2023 titled as Mohit Lath & ors. Vs
State of H.P & ors. (CWP No. 787/2022). The
Appellants filed LPA in 3 Cases i.e. :-
i) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Mohit Lath &
rt ors.
CMP (M) No.1111 /2024-Decided òn 6.8.2024.
ii) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Shammi Bhatti- CMP
(M) NO. 924/2024 decided on 6.8.2024 and
iii) State of H.P & Ors. Vs Pankaj Rana CMP
(M) No 1070/2024 decided on 6.8.2024.
11. That during the pendency of SLP titled
as State of H.P & others Vs Mohit Lath & ors,
a Counter Affidavit was filed by Respondents
in December, 2024 that the petitioners
(Present appellants) have not filed SLP's in
other (15 writ Petitions) of the common
judgment dated 25.09.2023.
12. That accordingly comments/information
was supplied to AOR on 21st January, 2025.
13. That for filing Rejoinder Affidavit on
behalf of Appellants (Petitioner in SLP) more
information so sought was provided in
February 2025/May 2025 to AOR.
14. After detailed deliberations, with Ld.
Advocate General and AOR in September,
2025, respective LPAs have been opined to
be filed. It is submitted that the delay in
filing of LPA is not intentional rather it has
come to the knowledge of the Department
only on receiving the Legal Opinion from Ld.
.
Advocate General that separate LPA for each
CWP is legally required to be filed despite
the fact that the common Judgment dated
25.09.2023 in CWP No. 787/2022 titled as
Mohit Lath ors. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. has
been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
of
Order dated 04.10.2024 in the matter-
Special Leave to Appeal (C) bearing No.
22733 of 2024 titled as State of H.P. & ors.
Vs. Mohit Lath & ors."
rt
10. Thus, apparently from the above, it would be
crystal clear that the initial SLP was filed on 20.09.2024,
but no action has been taken to file the appeal in the
present case and only when counter had to be filed
before the Apex Count in September, 2025, a decision
was taken to file the appeals. The State has remained
totally inactive and not interested and the right term
would be 'negligent'.
11. The law has been settled in various judgments
passed by the Apex Court that once there is inaction,
there are certain vested rights to the litigants.
12. Learned Counsel for the State has tried to
convince us that the matters should be kept pending,
since these matters are pending before the Apex Court.
13. We are of the considered opinion that it is
.
high time that the State should realize the seriousness of
issue of litigation. It was always open to the State to file
a joint appeal at the first instance, not only to save the
costs as such for filing separate Letters Patents Appeals,
of
by impleding all the respondents and by amending the
memo of parties, not only to cut the costs, but also to
save its administrative costs which this Court incurs on
rt
entertaining a large number of appeals in bunch matters.
However, the State functions in its own manner, on which
we do not wish to comment.
14. Resultantly, keeping in view the settled
principles of law already laid down by the Apex Court and
also quoted by the earlier Co-ordinate Bench in its order
dated 06.08.2024, while dismissing the application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal in Mohit Lath's
case, we can only add another precedent to the said
judgment.
15. Recently, in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary
No. 54941 of 2025, titled as State of Odisha & others
Vs. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High
School, the Apex Court vide its order dated 09.02.2026,
has held that once the State has been lethargic, tardy
.
and indolent, the latitude is not to be shown to the State
to condone the delay, while referring to the earlier
judgments, including the judgment in Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC
of
107 where a lenient view was taken.
16. As noticed, the view was that each and every
day's delay is not to be explained, but in principle,
rt
sufficient cause has to be shown. But in the present
case, as noticed, there is a total inaction on the part of
the State, which would be clear from the contents of the
application, which have been reproduced above, wherein
it was pointed out that the Department was unaware as
to whether appeals have to be filed or not, and only when
before the Apex Court objection was raised, decision was
taken to file the appeals.
17. In such circumstances, we have no option but
to dismiss the applications for condonation of delay.
Consequently, the appeals also face the same
consequence.
18. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
.
disposed of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice.
of
February 27, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi)
(hemlata) Judge.
rt
