Dismissed¶48

State of Hp and Others v. Saini Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jun 2026LPA/333/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; inordinate delay by State; sufficient cause; LPA barred by 2 years 30 days; government litigation apathy; failure to consolidate litigation; regularization of Cook after 10 years' service; Mool Raj Upadhayay 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries (2010) 5 SCC 459; Living Media India (2012) 3 SCC 563; Esha Bhattacharjee (2013) 12 SCC 649; connected matters LPA Nos. 175 and 176 of 2026; CWPOA No. 7629 of 2020; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; CMP(M) No. 841 of 2026; LPA No. 333 of 2026; decided 03.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the application for condonation of delay (CMP(M) No. 841 of 2026) and the appeal (LPA No. 333 of 2026) were both dismissed. ¶48

State of Hp and Others Vs Saini Ram — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the application for condonation of delay (CMP(M) No. 841 of 2026) and the appeal (LPA No. 333 of 2026) were both dismissed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 2 years 30 days in filing the State's appeal (LPA No. 333 of 2026) against the judgment dated 04.04.2024 in CWPOA No. 7629 of 2020.

¶9

Court's answer

No case is made out to entertain the application for condonation of delay of 2 years 30 days; the situation in the present case is 'only much worse' than in the connected matters LPA Nos. 175 and 176 of 2026 (barred by 1 year 337 days and 1 year 295 days respectively), which were dismissed on the same ground, and the earlier position in those connected matters is kept in view.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The delay occurred at various levels and remains unexplained: no action was taken after 04.04.2024 when at least three similar cases were decided by the learned Single Judge; there was unexplained delay till 21.03.2025; the certified copy was applied for only on 15.11.2025, about 1½ years after the order; and despite receiving the certified copy in November 2025, the appeal could not be filed till March 2026, showing total apathy at the hands of the litigation branch, with the State failing to consolidate three identical appeals from the same institute and the same Directorate.

¶44

Key takeaways

The application for condonation of delay is dismissed in the absence of sufficient cause and, resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Division Bench: G. S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin C. Negi, J.) dismissed the State's LPA No. 333 of 2026, barred by 2 years 30 days, and refused condonation of delay (CMP(M) No. 841 of 2026) for absence of sufficient cause. Following its earlier dismissal on 31.03.2026 of LPA Nos. 175 of 2026 (Ramesh Chand) and 176 of 2026 (Nasib Singh @ Chuhru Ram) — barred by 1 year 337 days and 1 year 295 days respectively — and the principles in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries (2010) 5 SCC 459, Living Media India (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Esha Bhattacharjee (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Court found the delay occurred at various levels: no action after 04.04.2024 when at least three similar cases were decided; unexplained delay till 21.03.2025; certified copy applied for only on 15.11.2025 (about 1½ years after the order); and the appeal not filed till March 2026 despite receipt of the certified copy in November 2025 — showing total apathy of the litigation branch and failure to consolidate three identical matters from the same institute and Directorate. The impugned judgment (CWPOA No. 7629 of 2020, dated 04.04.2024) had regularized the respondent as Cook after 10 years' service, following Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, with notional benefits for three years preceding the writ petition and actual monetary benefits thereafter.

¶1

2026:HHC:21796

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

CMP(M) No. 841 of 2026 & LPA No. 333 of 2026 Date of decision: 03.06.2026 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Saini Ram …Respondent

¶4

Co ram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶9

The present time barred appeal is sought to be entertained by the State by filing an application for condonation of delay, whereby the office has calculated the delay to be of 2 years 30 days against the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 7629 of 2020 , titled as Saini Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , dated 04.04.2024, filed by the employee Saini Ram (respondent herein).

¶10

The learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to regularization on completion of 10 years of service as Cook against the said post and his regularization was ordered with all consequential benefits on notional basis upto three years, preceding the date of filing of

¶11

¶12

2026:HHC:21796

¶13

the writ petition, after which date the actual monetary benefits were applicable.

¶14

The learned Single Judge found that the employee had been working in the Boys Hostel, Government Post Graduate College, Dharamshala, H.P. since 2007 and initially he had been appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The petitioner had put in 17 years of his life in service and no decision had been taken regarding regularization of his service and at the time of filing of the petition he was 48 years old and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj

¶15

Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. & Ors., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 , he was held entitled to regularization after completion of 10 years of service.

¶16

Counsel for the State has been fair enough to point out that in similar circumstances two other appeals bearing LPA No. 175 of 2026 , titled as State of H.P & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chand and LPA No. 176 of 2026, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Nasib Singh @ Chuhru Ram , decided on 31.03.2026, have already been dismissed on same ground by us on the ground of delay, wherein after noticing the factum of the inaction of the State as such, the following findings have been recorded:-

¶17

“5. The above facts would go on to show that the State has been lackadaisical in going ahead in pursuing the

¶18

¶19

2026:HHC:21796

¶20

appeal, as it took them over a year to take remedial steps.

¶21

6. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, wherein it has been held that in absence of any plausible and tangible explanation for long delay, there was no valid reason to condone the delay.

¶22

7. In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, it has been held that liberal concession may have to be adopted, but the department cannot take advantage of its own impersonal machinery and they have to perform the duty with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception.

¶23

8. In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649, the principles of limitation were culled out as under:

¶24

“i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justiceoriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

¶25

ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:21796

¶28

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

¶29

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

¶30

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

¶31

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

¶32

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

¶33

¶34

2026:HHC:21796

¶35

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

¶36

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

¶37

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

¶38

9. Therefore, for the reasons given above, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶39

In the present case also, the situation is only much worse, since those appeals were barred by 1 years 337 days and 1 year 295 days respectively. Sufficient cause to condone the delay has been sought to be made out in similar matter in Nasib Singh’s case (supra), which arose out of CWPOA No. 7631 of 2020 , titled as Nasib Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , and was decided on the same date i.e. 04.04.2024. The decision had been examined at various level at Directorate of Higher Education and sent to the Government College Dharamashala, District Kangra, H.P. on 18.09.2024 and detailed facts had been submitted on 30.10.2024. The matter was then examined at Directorate level and only sent to the government for directions on 21.03.2025

¶40

¶41

2026:HHC:21796

¶42

and the government conveyed the approval on 23.04.2025 and the same was received in the Legal Cell two days later on 25.04.2025. Thereafter, certified copy of the judgment was received on 21.11.2025 and was sent to College Branch on 25.11.2025, and then referred back by the same to take up the matter with general branch. The LPA was only drafted on 16.02.2026.

¶43

Apparently, there is no action as such which has been taken after 04.04.2024 on which date at least three similar cases were decided by the learned Single Judge and after five months, the Directorate of Higher Education sent the file to Government Degree College Dharamshala on 18.09.2024. Thereafter, there has been unexplained delay till 21.03.2025, when the matter was sent to Government and even the certified copy was only received on 21.11.2025, which was applied only on 15.11.2025, after 1 ½ years of the order being passed.

¶44

The State rather than acting in consolidated manner, when the three appeals on same issue have been decided, from the same institute and from the same Directorate, is not able to consolidate its litigation and in spite of the fact that it is not one case but three cases, which shows total apathy at the hands of the litigation branch as from November, 2025, after receiving the certified copy also, the appeal could not be filed till March, 2026. At various levels, the delay has taken place.

¶45

¶46

2026:HHC:21796

¶47

Resultantly, keeping in view the earlier position in connected two matters reproduced above, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to entertain the application for condonation of delay.

¶48

Therefore, for the reasons given above, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶49

(G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶50

(Bipin C. Negi) 3^rd June, 2026 Judge

¶51

(sanjeev)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 7629 of 2020 (Saini Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) directing regularization of the respondent as Cook on completion of 10 years of service, with all consequential benefits on notional basis up to three years preceding the writ petition and actual monetary benefits thereafter.¶9
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 04.04.2024
Prior proceeding
Office calculated the delay in filing the present appeal as 2 years 30 days; the State sought condonation of delay to entertain the time-barred appeal.¶9
Prior proceeding
Learned Single Judge held the petitioner entitled to regularization on completion of 10 years of service as Cook, with all consequential benefits on notional basis up to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition, after which actual monetary benefits were applicable.¶10
Prior proceeding
Employee had worked in the Boys Hostel, Government Post Graduate College, Dharamshala since 2007, initially on consolidated salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month; with 17 years of service, no regularization decision taken, and aged 48 at filing, he was held entitled to regularization after 10 years' service following Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. & Ors., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316.¶14
Prior proceeding
Two connected appeals in similar circumstances — LPA No. 175 of 2026 (State of H.P & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chand) and LPA No. 176 of 2026 (State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Nasib Singh @ Chuhru Ram), barred by 1 year 337 days and 1 year 295 days respectively — were already dismissed by this Division Bench on 31.03.2026 on the ground of delay.¶16
Prior proceeding
Timeline of processing in the connected Nasib Singh matter (CWPOA No. 7631 of 2020, decided 04.04.2024): examined at Directorate of Higher Education and sent to Government College Dharamshala on 18.09.2024; facts submitted 30.10.2024; sent to government 21.03.2025; approval conveyed 23.04.2025; received in Legal Cell 25.04.2025; certified copy received 21.11.2025.¶42
Prior proceeding
No action taken after 04.04.2024 when at least three similar cases were decided by the learned Single Judge; unexplained delay till 21.03.2025; certified copy applied for only on 15.11.2025, about 1½ years after the order.¶43

State of Hp and Others v. Saini Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Saini Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hp Financial Corporation Vs Mahinder Singh Chatranta

State of Hp and Another Vs Bhagat Ram-Ii and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Babu Ram and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Narender Kumar

State of Hp and Others Vs Jogi Ram and Another

M/S Ethix Health Care Vs State of Hp and Others