Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 99 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lalita Sharma

2021-03-03

ANOOP CHITKARA, L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2021
JUDGMENT : L. Narayana Swamy, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants-State assailing judgment dated 11.05.2015, passed in CWP No. 3127 of 2012, titled as Lalita Sharma v. The Secretary (Education) and others, by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be permanently absorbed as a Clerk in the Education Department in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 revised to Rs. 5910-20200 with effect from 19.03.2001 plus Rs. 1900/- Grade Pay, including benefit of seniority (hereinafter to be referred as 'the impugned judgment') 2. Challenging the impugned judgment, the appellants-State had filed an appeal, in which CMP (M) No. 702 of 2018 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Vide order dated 26.06.2018, the said CMP(M) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action. 3. Thereafter, since the impugned judgment was not complied with by the appellants-State, the petitioner/respondent had filed a Contempt Petition, bearing COPC No. 63 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2017 in view of the fact that LPA in the aforesaid writ petition was pending. 4. Office order dated 07.06.2019, passed by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, has been placed on record, whereby it has been submitted that the matter has been re-considered/examined by the Department and the petitioner was permanently absorbed as a Clerk in the Education Department, including the benefit of seniority from 19.03.2001. 5. In view of the aforesaid office order, the second Contempt Petition i.e. COPC No. 43 of 2019 filed by the petitioner-respondent, was dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2019. 6. The present petition has arisen as the previous appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. 7. In the present appeal, CMP (M) No. 1847 of 2019, has been filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is delay of four years, three months and one day, in filing the present appeal. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the delay occurred due to the pendency of the proceedings before this Court in the previous LPA, which was, later on, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the delay occurred due to the pendency of the proceedings before this Court in the previous LPA, which was, later on, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action. He prays that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned. He further submits that earlier the petitioner was working with H.P. State Forest Development Corporation, Ltd. As she was surplus, she was sent to the Education Department in the year 2001 and vide Office Order dated 25.04.2011, she was permanently absorbed as Clerk in the said Department from the date of joining as Clerk in the said Department. He further submits that the officials, who are absorbed in the Education Department, have been placed at the bottom in the seniority list. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that this appeal may be dismissed as the delay in filing the present appeal has not been properly explained. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record minutely. 11. While disposing of the impugned judgment, ten weeks' time was granted to the respondents-State to comply with the directions contained therein. The respondents-State instead of complying with the directions contained in the impugned judgment, filed an appeal before this Court, in which CMP (M) No. 702 of 2018 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Vide order dated 26.06.2018, the said CMP(M) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action. 12. Merely pendency of the proceedings before this Court in the previous LPA, is not a sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason must be assigned that for which purpose a fresh appeal is required to be filed. The previous LPA was dismissed with liberty to file afresh and during the pendency of the said LPA, COPC No. 63 of 2017 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2017 in view of the pendency of the said LPA before this Court. The previous LPA was dismissed with liberty to file afresh and during the pendency of the said LPA, COPC No. 63 of 2017 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2017 in view of the pendency of the said LPA before this Court. Since during the pendency of the second Contempt Petition i.e. COPC No. 43 of 2019, the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated 07.06.2019, had submitted that the matter has been re-considered/examined by the Department and the petitioner was permanently absorbed as a Clerk in the Education Department, including the benefit of seniority from 19.03.2001, it is not open for the appellants-State to file the present appeal. 13. The submission of the learned Advocate General, that during the pendency of the previous LPA and the Contempt Petitions so much time was consumed as the matter was discussed with the Authorities concerned and the file moved from one Department to another, does not convince us and the same is accordingly rejected. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, CMP(M) No. 1847 of 2019 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.