Dismissed¶31

State of Haryana and Others v. Dharampal

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2026RSA/850/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; inordinate delay of 02 years 11 months in filing first appeal by State of Haryana; sufficient cause; lack of bonafide; reasonable diligence; government appeal barred by limitation; departmental approval timeline (Legal Remembrancer 20.03.2020; legal cell 10.11.2022; Director Secondary Education 21.11.2022); RSA dismissed; judgments and decrees of Courts below upheld; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Justice Harkesh Manuja; State of Haryana v. Dharampal; suit for declaration; notional promotion; 8% per annum interest.

What did the court decide?

Even if the reasons expressed by the appellants/defendants in their application for condonation of delay of 02 years 11 months were accepted on face value, they do not disclose any sufficient cause warranting condonation of such an inordinate delay. ¶26

State of Haryana and Others Vs Dharampal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 02 years and 11 months in filing the First Appeal (C.A. No.262 of 2023) against the decree dated 31.01.2020 was supported by sufficient cause warranting condonation. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Once the District Attorney's opinion was rendered on 10.11.2022 and approval accorded by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula on 21.11.2022, there was no valid reason or explanation for waiting another 09 months to file the First Appeal only on 24.08.2023.

¶26

Key takeaways

The appellants' action clearly demonstrates a lack of bonafide; no special treatment can be afforded to them and they acted without reasonable diligence.ratio¶26
Since no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay in filing Civil Appeal No.262 of 2023, no interference is called for with the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2025 of the learned First Appellate Court dismissing the condonation application and the first appeal.ratio¶27
The present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed, thereby upholding the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., Oral) — Regular Second Appeal No.850 of 2026 (O&M) filed by the State of Haryana and others DISMISSED; the First Appellate Court's decision dated 24.09.2025 (Additional District Judge, Narnaul) rejecting condonation of a delay of 02 years and 11 months in filing the First Appeal (C.A. No.262 of 2023) against the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul) partly decreeing the respondent-plaintiff's suit for declaration (notional promotion from deemed date, arrears of pay from actual date of promotion at par with reserve-category juniors, with 8% per annum interest) is upheld. Even taken at face value, the departmental explanations — Legal Remembrancer's opinion of 20.03.2020, transmission to the legal cell on 10.11.2022, and the Director, Secondary Education's approval of 21.11.2022 — left an unexplained further gap of about nine months until filing on 24.08.2023, disclosing no sufficient cause, demonstrating lack of bonafide and absence of reasonable diligence, and entitling the appellants to no special treatment; judgments and decrees of the Courts below stand upheld.

¶1

¶2

RSA No.850 of 2026 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

134

¶5

RSA No.850 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2026

¶6

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs DHARAMPAL

¶7

......Appellants

¶8

....Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present: Mr. R.P.S. Brar, Asstt. A.G., Hary a na for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. ****

¶12

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

¶13

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment a nd decree dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Court o f learned Additional District Ju d ge, Narnaul (herei n after to be referred as the “First Appellate Court” ), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of appellants-de fe ndants against the judgment a nd decree dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Cou r t of learned Civil Judge (Ju n ior Division), Nar n aul (hereinafter to be referr e d as the “Trial Court”) ; partly decreeing the s u it for declaration filed by the r espondent-plaintiff, was dismi s sed being barred b y limitation; thereby affirming t h e judgment and decree passe d by the learned Tria l Court.

¶14

[2]. In t he present case, a suit for dec l aration filed at the instance of the respondent-plai n tiff was partly decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judg m ent and decree da t ed 31.01.2020. The relevant p ortion from the decree shee t is extracted hereu n der:-

¶15

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

¶17

RSA No.850 of 2026 (O&M)

¶18

“It is ordered that the suit of p laintiff must succeed and the sa m e is he re by partly decreed with no order a s to costs to the effect that plaint if f is en ti tled for notional promotion from deemed date with fixation notio n ally an d arrears of pay from actual date o f his promotion at par with his ju n iors of r eserve category alongwith inter es t at the rate of 8% per annum. I t is ho w ever made clear that the plainti ff shall not be entitled for payme n t of arr e ars of salary payable for the p eriod between the deemed dat e of pr om otion and the actual date of pro m otion and his pay be fixed notio n ally fro m the date of his promotion.”

¶19

[3]. Be i ng aggrieved, the app e llants/defendants assailed the aforementioned judgment and decree before th e learned First Appellate Court. T he First Appeal ( C .A. No.262 of 2023) was fi l ed on 24.08.2023 along with an application for seeking condonation of delay of 02 years and 11 months. T he learned First A ppellate Court, vide its decisi o n dated 24.09.2025, rejected the prayer made b y the appellant with respect to condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal an d resultantly, the first appeal wa s also dismissed. Hence the pre s ent Regular Second Appeal.

¶20

[4]. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

¶21

[5]. A p erusal of the record shows that the suit preferred at the instanc e of the respondent- p laintiff was partly decreed in h i s favour by the learned Trial C o urt vide its judgme n t and decree dated 31.01.202 0 , whereas the First Appeal aga i nst the same was p r eferred on 24.08.2023 along wi t h an application for condonatio n of delay of 02 ye a rs and 11 months. As per the appellants/defendants, initially the office of Legal Remembrancer and Administ r ative Secretary to Govt. Haryana vide its commu n ication dated 20.03.2020 opine d that the present was not a fit c ase for filing of Re g ular Second Appeal, however, l ater, on the advice rendered by the

¶22

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶23

¶24

RSA No.850 of 2026 (O&M)

¶25

District Attorn e y of the concerned departm e nt, the matter was sent to the departmental le g al cell on 10.11.2022 for filin g civil appeal. In pursuance ther e of, approval was granted by the office of Direct o r, Secondary Education, Hary a na, Panchkula on 21.11.2022 and accordingly the First Appeal was filed on 24.08.2023.

¶26

[6]. In such circumstances, even i f the reasons expressed by the appellants/defe n dants in their application for s e eking condonation of delay o f 02 years 11 month s in filing the appeal, were acce p ted on face value, the same do not disclose any su f ficient cause warranting condo n ation of such an inordinate de l ay. Once the opin i on to file First Appeal was r endered by the office of Dis t rict Attorney of th e concerned Department on 1 0.11.2022 and the approval w as accorded by th e office of Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkul a on 21.11.2022, t h ere was no valid reason or explanation given by the appellants/defe n dants for having waited for another 09 months in filing the F irst Appeal only on 24.08.2023. The appellants’ a c tion clearly demonstrate a lac k of bonafide and, therefore, no special treatme n t can be afforded. In fact, the appellants acte d without reasonable diligence.

¶27

[7]. In v iew of the discussion made he r einabove, there being no suffic i ent cause made out by the appellants/defendants to w ards condonation of delay in fi l ing of Civil Appea l No.262 of 2023 before the le a rned First Appellate Court aga i nst the judgment a n d decree dated 31.01.2020 pa s sed by the learned Trial Cour t in favour of the r e spondent-plaintiff; no interfere n ce is called for with the judg m ent and decree dat e d 24.09.2025 passed by the l e arned First Appellate Court v ide which the appl i cation preferred at the instan c e of the appellants/defendants for condonation of delay of 02 years and 11 mon t hs in filing the First Appeal st o od

¶28

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶29

¶30

RSA No.850 of 2026 (O&M)

¶31

dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal b eing devoid of merits is her e by dismissed, ther e by upholding the judgment a nd decrees passed by the Co u rts below.

¶32

[8]. All pending application(s), if any, s hall stand disposed of.

¶33

(HARKESH MANUJA) July 01, 2026 JUDGE Atik Wh e ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wh e ther reportable Yes/No

¶34

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

State of Haryana and Others v. Dharampal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Others v. Dharampal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh Alias Jagga Vs Union of India and Others

MD Abu Talib Vs State of Haryana and Others

Roopa and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Const. Ravinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Suridner Singh Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Sarabjit Singh Bajwa Vs the Additional Secretary and Others