Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1079 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. DEV RAJ BHARDWAJ

2009-11-18

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-By means of this writ petition, the petitioner State has laid challenge to the orders of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 26th September, 1997, passed in O.A.(D) No.818 of 1995, as well as the order of the Tribunal, dated 19th October, 2006, passed in Execution Petition No.18 of 1998. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent Dev Raj Bhardwaj filed an Original Application before the Tribunal claiming that he is entitled to the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Tribunal allowed this Original Application on 26th September, 1997, relying upon a judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, dated 18th March, 1991, passed in O.A. No.1045 of 1991, titled Hari Chand Rana versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. The State of Himachal Pradesh filed a number of appeals in the Apex Court challenging the judgment rendered in Hari Chand Rana’s case and other cases, where the employees, who had joined civil service in the State of H.P. prior to 1.11.1962, were granted the benefit of the Rules. Admittedly, no appeal was filed in the case of Dev Raj Bhardwaj’s case (respondent herein) and the order of the Tribunal, dated 26th September, 1997, attained finality. 4. The order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal was set aside by the Apex Court in State of H.P. & Anr. versus Piar Singh, 2003(2) Cur. L.J. (HP) 117. It would be pertinent to mention that after the disposal of the Original Application on 26th September, 1997, Dev Raj respondent filed an Execution Petition before the Tribunal in the year 1998. The State was, admittedly, served with notice of the Execution Petition and contested the Execution Petition. Despite the fact that the Execution Petition was contested and the State was aware that in other matters appeals have been filed in the Apex Court, no appeal or writ petition challenging the order of the learned Tribunal was filed in this case. The State was, admittedly, served with notice of the Execution Petition and contested the Execution Petition. Despite the fact that the Execution Petition was contested and the State was aware that in other matters appeals have been filed in the Apex Court, no appeal or writ petition challenging the order of the learned Tribunal was filed in this case. The Execution Petition finally came up for hearing before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 19.10.2006 in the following terms: “In view of above well settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case in hand, the order dated September 26, 1997 having not been assailed has attained the finality inter-se-parties and in the execution proceedings its validity/correctness cannot be assailed/looked into and it has to be implemented as it is. Therefore the respondents are duty bound to satisfy the said judgment/order in its entirety like a decree of the Civil Court as per provisions of the code of civil procedure. In these circumstances warrant of attachment of the Vehicle No.HP-07B-0007 as proposed vide Misc. Application No.836/2006 be issued and made returnable within four weeks.” 5. Now, the State has challenged the order, dated 26th September, 1997, passed in the Original Application as well as the order passed in the Execution Petition on 19th October, 2006. The writ petition was filed on 29th November, 2006 i.e. more than 9 years after the original order was passed on 26th September, 1997. No cogent or valid reasons have been given for explaining this long delay of 9 years. The only explanation which is sought to be given is that the State remained under the impression that the fate of the Execution Petition would be governed by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in connected matters. The State is given legal advice by the office of the Advocate General. It has a full retinue of legal advisors and the State cannot be heard to say that it remained under the impression that even if it did not file an appeal in a particular case, it would not be required to execute an order which is not challenged. This is no ground for condoning the delay. The writ petition is miserably barred by the principles of delay and laches as far as original order, which was passed on 26th September 1997, is concerned. 6. This is no ground for condoning the delay. The writ petition is miserably barred by the principles of delay and laches as far as original order, which was passed on 26th September 1997, is concerned. 6. With regard to the order, dated 19th October, 2006, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dated 26th September, 1997 had attained finality. This order was never challenged by the State and, therefore, the State is bound to execute the said order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.