Dismissed

State of Hp and Another v. Pritam Singh and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024CMP.M/509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and allowed a separate delay condonation application. The court held the appeal lacked merit because the legal issue on military service fixation was non-riding (no longer res integra) after recent Supreme Court dismissals and was covered by settled precedent, also barring it under res judicata principles.

What did the court decide?

Death condonation application allowed; writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable due to res judicata and non-riding issue.

State of Hp and Another Vs Pritam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMP(M) No. 509 of 2024 in LPA No. 441 of 2024

¶3

Date of decision: 09.12.2024.

¶4

State of H.P. & another ...Appellants. Versus Pritam Singh and Ors. ...Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Manish Dhatwalia, Advocate.

¶8

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (oral):

¶9

CMP(M) No. 509 of 2024

¶10

For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of Director, SC, OBC, and Minority H.P., we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 94 days’ that has crept-up in filing the appeal. Ordered accordingly. Application stands disposed of.

¶11

LPA No. 441 of 2024

¶12

The Writ Court has allowed the writ petition, filed by the respondents, by directing the appellants herein to grant the benefit of approved military service towards

¶13

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

¶14

-2-

¶15

fixation of pay in favour of the respondents from the date of their joining the civil employment, vide judgment dated 01.12.2023, passed in CWP No. 6708 of 2022 and aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the instant appeal.

¶16

We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeal, given the fact that the question involved in the instant appeal is no longer res-integra , in view of dismissal of SLP (C), Diary No. 41608 of 2022, titled as, The State of H.P. & others vs. Babu Ram , decided on 25.10.2024, filed by the State.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the issue, as involved in the present appeal was the same which was the subject matter of CWP No. 488 of 2001 , titled as, V.K. Behal & others vs. State of H.P. & others , decided on 29.12.2008, as also the Civil Appeal No. 011060 of 2017, titled as, R. K. Barwall & others vs. The State of H.P. & others . Once again, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 25.8.2017.

¶18

Yet again, it is not in dispute that an identical issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court, in

¶19

-3-

¶20

which, one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.) was a member, in Avtar Singh Dyal vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd., CWP No. 4654 of 2013 , decided on 26.11.2014 and the judgment was assailed by the State. 5. Not only this, the issue is otherwise covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 6443 of 2021, titled as, Babu Ram vs. State of H.P. & others , wherein all the aforesaid precedents were considered by the then Principal Bench of this Court and the petition filed by the petitioner therein was allowed vide judgment dated 9.5.2022, against which the SLP, as aforesaid, has now recently been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2024.

¶21

That apart, the instant appeal is otherwise not maintainable, as admittedly, as many as, 14 writ petitions were decided by the learned Writ Court vide a common judgment dated 1.12.2023 and the State has not assailed the said decision in all the writ petitions and has only filed the appeal in the instant case and CMP(M) No.509 of 2024. Thus, this appeal is barred by the principles of res-judicata.

¶22

-4-

¶23