State of Hp and Ors. Vs Puran Chand — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Puran Chand — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 56 days in filing the appeal condoned; appeal dismissed alongwith pending application(s), leaving the Single Judge's direction to continue the respondent-petitioner in service till the age of 60 years intact.

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal (CMP(M) No. 2091 of 2024). +1 more

Court's answer

Sufficient cause having been made out on the averments in the application supported by affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

Following the principle and law laid down in Satya Devi's case that a Class-IV employee is entitled to continue in service till he/she attains the age of 60 years, and in the absence of any stay granted in the pending SLP (Civil) No. 20496 of 2024, the State is not entitled to take a different stand.

Key takeaways

As an additional ground, continuance in service benefits the State on payment of wages when the petitioner performs duty, since if the SLP is dismissed the State would otherwise have to give an equivalent amount without taking work from the employee.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Ranjan Sharma, Judge), LPA No. 111 of 2025 with CMP(M) No. 2091 of 2024, decided 22.03.2025 — State of H.P. & others (Appellants) v. Puran Chand (Respondent). Delay of 56 days in filing the appeal condoned. The appeal was directed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 31.07.2024 in Civil Writ Petition No. 7268 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner — a Class-IV employee appointed on contract basis on 25.04.2007, regularized on 10.10.2014 and superannuated on 31.01.2024 — in service till he attains the age of 60 years, on the basis of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi v. State of H.P. & others). Held: with SLP (Civil) No. 20496 of 2024 pending before the Apex Court and no stay granted therein, the State is not entitled to take a different stand from the law laid down in Satya Devi's case; consistent with LPA No. 63 of 2025 (State of H.P. & others v. Bindra Devi) dismissed on 28.02.2025 in similar circumstances; further, continuance in service with payment of wages benefits the State, as it would otherwise have to pay an equivalent amount without taking work if the SLP is dismissed. Appeal dismissed alongwith pending application(s).

1

2025:HHC:7415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CMP(M) No. 2091 of 2024 & LPA No. 111 of 2025

Date of decision: 22.03.2025

_________________________________________________________ State of H.P. & others …..Appellant Versus Puran Chand …Respondent

________________________________________________________ Coram:_

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

______________________ For the Appellants:	___________________________________ Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
	General with Pranay Pratap
	Singh, Mr. Additional Advocate
	General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

CMP (M) No. 2096 of 2024

Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

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

2

LPA No. 111 of 2025

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 7268 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The said order was passed on the basis of judgment dated 28.05.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. &

others.

Counsel for the State has tried to distinguish the said case as such on the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed on contract basis on 25.04.2007. Apparently, his services were regularized on 10.10.2014 and thereafter, he was superannuated on 31.01.2024. On account of the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case, supra , he approached this Court and the writ petition was allowed at the first instance.

Learned State Counsel has objected to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the

3

ground that the respondents were not given an opportunity to file reply to the writ petition.

It is not disputed that SLP (Civil) No.20496 of 2024 is pending before the Apex Court. Keeping in view the principle and law laid down by this Court in the Satya Devi’s case (supra) that a Class-IV employee is entitled to continue in service till he/she attains the age of 60 years, we are of the considered opinion that the State is not entitled to take a different stand in the absence of any stay granted in the aforesaid SLP. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed LPA No. 63 of 2025, titled as State

of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Bindra Devi , on 28.02.2025. Otherwise also, it would only benefit the State on payment of wages if the petitioner performs the duty and in case the SLP is dismissed, the State would not have to give equivalent amount without taking work from the employee in question.

4

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

alongwith pending application(s), if any.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice.

March 22, 2025

(hemlata)

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge.