Dismissed¶15

State of Hp and Others v. Randhir Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC21 May 2024CWP/4385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 4385 of 2024; State of H.P. vs. Randhir Singh; writ petition against Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal judgment dt.02.07.2019 in OA No. 6783 of 2018; recovery order dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure A-10) from Class III State Government employee; State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Maish, AIR 2015 SC 696, prohibition on recovery from Class III post holders; alleged online filing on 20.06.2020 via nonexistent website; State's negligence in verifying filing; dismissal at admission stage on grounds of delay and lack of merit; pending applications disposed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The State was negligent in not checking whether the matter was in fact filed in the High Court between 20.06.2020 and 18.05.2024; consequently the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. ¶11

State of Hp and Others Vs Randhir Singh — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4385 of 2024 Decided on: 21^st May, 2024

¶2

____________________________________________________ State of H.P and others ....Petitioners. Versus Randhir Singh ...Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: None.

¶3

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)

¶4

This Writ petition has been filed on 18.05.2024 challenging the judgment dt.02.07.2019 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6783 of 2018.

¶5

It is stated that the Writ petition has been submitted online on 20.06.2020, and at page 87 alleged filing of the same is indicated on a website; but the said website appears to be a nonexistent website and this is not disputed by the learned Additional

¶6

Advocate General.

¶7

1. The State has also not bothered to check whether the

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

matter was in fact filed in the High Court between 20.06.2020 and

¶11

18.05.2024. They have clearly been negligent in that regard.

¶12

1. Admittedly, the respondent was holding a class III post

¶13

in the State Government and a recovery order had been passed on 01.11.2018 vide Annexure A-10, which had been challenged by

¶14

him before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. no. 6783 of 2018, and the Tribunal had applied the decision of Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Maish² prohibiting such recovery from the persons holding class III posts. The Tribunal had allowed the OA filed by the respondent on 02.07.2019.

¶15