Dismissed¶35

Hp State Pollution Control Board v. Sandeep Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Jun 2026CMP.M/863/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay dismissed; CMP(M) No.863 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Letters Patent Appeal; H.P. State Pollution Control Board vs Sandeep Kumar; Law Officer pay scale Rs.15600-39100 GP 6600; CWP No.1736 of 2023 judgment dated 03.03.2025; Article 14 parity; vested right; indefeasible right from departmental inaction; Service Committee delay; Sword of Damocles; Maniben Devraj Shah (2012) 5 SCC 157; Oriental Aroma (2010) 5 SCC 459; Living Media (2012) 3 SCC 563; B. Madhuri Goud; Esha Bhattacharjee (2013) 12 SCC 649; H. Guruswamy Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025; Contempt Petition No.1212 of 2025; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal necessarily follows the same fate; all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ¶35

Hp State Pollution Control Board Vs Sandeep Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause exists to condone the delay of 1 year and 71 days in filing the Board's time-barred appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) against the Single Judge judgment in CWP No.1736 of 2023.

¶18

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal necessarily follows the same fate; all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

A vested right has accrued in favour of the employee, and the Board cannot at this belated stage make out sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶23

Key takeaways

As repeatedly held by the Apex Court, inordinate delay attributable to the casual attitude of a Department gives the litigant an indefeasible right; the State may be given only a certain latitude despite being handicapped.ratio¶24
Since the file had not been processed (no proactive steps for about a year; Law Department initially advised implementation, not appeal; Service Committee took three meetings from August to October 2025 and decided only on 28.03.2026 to appeal), the Board is not entitled to the latitude, and the 'Sword of Damocles' cannot hang indefinitely over the employee who has already been given the benefit subject to pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP(M) No.863 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin Chander Negi, J; decided 16.06.2026): The H.P. State Pollution Control Board sought condonation of a delay of 1 year and 71 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge judgment in CWP No.1736 of 2023 (Sandeep Kumar vs. Board, 03.03.2025), which had granted the employee the pay scale Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs.6600/- from his promotion as Law Officer and placement in the revised scale, on the Article 14 ground of parity with a similarly situated employee granted the scale since 2010. The Court found no sufficient cause: the Law Department's initial advice (20.06.2025) was to implement the decision, not appeal; the matter lay with the Service Committee from 15.07.2025 through three meetings (29.08.2025, 08.10.2025, 27.10.2025) before it directed an appeal only on 28.03.2026; the certified copy was applied for on 18.04.2026. Meanwhile the employee's benefit was implemented subject to the LPA outcome, and he had filed Contempt Petition No.1212 of 2025. Relying on Apex Court decisions (Maniben Devraj Shah; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries; Chief Postmaster General v. Living Media; B. Madhuri Goud; Esha Bhattacharjee; and Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah), that departmental casualness confers an indefeasible right on the litigant and the 'Sword of Damocles' must not hang indefinitely, and holding that a vested right had accrued, the Court dismissed the condonation application; the appeal accordingly fails and pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMP(M) No.863 of 2026 Date of Decision : 16.06.2026

¶4

H.P. State Pollution Control Board

…… Applicant

Versus

Sandeep Kumar

…… Respondent

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

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Applicant : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejassvi Dogra and Manish Sharma, Advocates.

¶13

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶14

The present time barred appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board seeks consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP No.1736 of 2023 , titled Sandeep Kumar vs. H.P. State Pollution Control Board , dated 03.03.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the grant of pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- to the

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

employee from the date he was promoted as a Law Officer. Direction has also been issued to the respondents to place him at appropriate level of recently revised pay scale. The same was done on the basis that a similar pay scale was granted to a similarly situated person since 2010 and the argument that it was only personal to the then incumbent, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.

¶18

The appeal is hopelessly time barred by 1 year and 71 days and there is no apparent justification in the application for condonation of such delay and no sufficient cause as such is made out to condone the inordinate delay.

¶19

Perusal of the application would go on to show that the judgment was passed on 03.03.2025 and the matter was taken up to the Administrative Department vide letter dated 02.05.2025 to further take up the matter to the Law Department. It has also been admitted that the Administrative Department, vide letter dated 20.06.2025, was conveyed the advice of the Law Department that it would be in the fitness of things if the decision is implemented in letter and spirit. Apparently, thereafter on 15.07.2025, the matter was placed before the Service Committee on the ground that the matter regarding creation, filling up of posts and up-gradation of posts falls within its purview. Various meetings were held by the said Committee on 29.08.2025, 08.10.2025 and 27.10.2025. In the meantime, Contempt Petition No.1212 of 2025 was filed by the employee on the ground of willful

¶20

¶21

non-compliance of the judgment. It is not disputed that the implementation has been done subject to final outcome of Letters Patent Appeal to avoid any adverse order in the Contempt Petition. The Administrative Department vide letter dated 14.12.2025 then took a call, as to whether the decision could be taken in the Service Committee through Finance (IF), while seeking legal remedies. The matter was again taken up and the Service Committee in its meeting held on 28.03.2026 directed the State Pollution Control Board to agitate against the aforesaid judgment. The certified copy of the judgment was then applied for on 18.04.2026.

¶22

Thus, it is apparent that for a year or so, no proactive steps as such were taken, rather initially the advice of the Law Department was not to file the appeal. It was thereafter that the matter was kept pending before the Service Committee, which in its wisdom took almost a year to come to the conclusion that the appeal has to be filed.

¶23

We are also of considered opinion that a vested right, as such, has accrued in favour of the employee and the Board cannot be given the liberty as such at this belated stage to make out that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the present appeal.

¶24

The Apex Court has, time and again, held that inordinate delay on the account of the casual attitude of the Department would give an indefeasible right as such to the litigant. There is apparently

¶25

¶26

total inaction on behalf of the said Board, as such, from March, 2025 till the 1^st week of July, 2025 and, thereafter, the Service Committee itself took no steps in at least 3 meetings held from the month of August, 2025 to the month of October, 2025. It was only on 28.03.2026, it has decided that the appeal should be filed and therefore on two occasions as such there is no such justification or sufficient cause made out, even for the grant of benefit as such to the State since there is a life span for each legal remedy. The Apex Court in its various decisions in Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs . Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459; Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563; B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy 2025 (2012) 12 SCC 693 and in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held that though the State is always handicapped and its hands are tied at its back, but only a certain latitude should be given.

¶27

Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed above and the settled principle of law on the issue of limitation, we are of the considered opinion that since the file had not been processed, the Board as such be not given the said latitude and the 'Sword of Damocles' cannot keep on hanging over the head of the

¶28

¶29

employee for an indefinite period, who has already been given the benefit subject to the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶30

In Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, titled as H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah since deceased by LRs , decided on 08.01.2025, the following observations had flown from the Apex Court:-

¶31

“16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

¶32

17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

¶33

¶34

In such circumstances, keeping in view the issue which is also subject matter of consideration, as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as such was the ground, on which basis the relief was granted, we do not find any plausible reason to condone the delay.

¶35

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal has to necessarily follow the same fate.

¶36

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶37

( Bipin Chander Negi) June 16, 2026 (KS) Judge

Hp State Pollution Control Board v. Sandeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hp State Pollution Control Board v. Sandeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar (Deceased) through LRs Vs State of Hp

Rajeev Kumar Vs Lata Sharma

State of Hp and Others Vs Raji Nand and Another

PWD Electrical Contractors Welfare Association Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Tapender Singh and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Ram Bhagat and Others