Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 913 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar

2025-05-05

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J . By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicants/State for condonation of 241 days delay in filing the appeal. 2. The State has preferred the appeal alongwith this application, against the judgment dated 09.10.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1747 of 2023, titled as Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in terms whereof, learned Single Judge directed step-up of the pay of the petitioners at par with the pay of their junior, namely Hemant Kumar. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that 241 days’ delay in filing the appeal, is bonafide and the reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter, stand spelled out in para-2(b) of the application. He further submitted that taking into consideration the fact that there is a machinery which deals with the legal issues and the channels have to be exhausted while taking a decision as to whether the judgment has to be assailed or not, the application be allowed so that the applicants are in a position to assail the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 4. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for the non-applicants and having perused the contents of para-2(b) of the application, we are of the considered view that this application deserves dismissal. The delay of 241 days in filing the appeal is substantial. A perusal of the averments made in the application demonstrates that the reasons given in the application as to why the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter are that after the judgment was delivered and copy thereof was downloaded, the same was sent to the office of Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla as well as to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and was also endorsed to the office of Superintendent Finance Branch of Police Headquarters for taking immediate necessary action. Thereafter vide letter dated 17.11.2023, a reminder was issued to the concerned authorities to expedite the matter. On 02.12.2023, Financial Advisor, Police Headquarter, Shimla, informed that Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) is a Government policy matter and Government of Himachal Pradesh was the competent authority to grant the benefit of step-up. Thereafter vide letter dated 17.11.2023, a reminder was issued to the concerned authorities to expedite the matter. On 02.12.2023, Financial Advisor, Police Headquarter, Shimla, informed that Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) is a Government policy matter and Government of Himachal Pradesh was the competent authority to grant the benefit of step-up. It was also suggested therein that in case judgment passed by the Court in the writ petition is implemented, the same would result in huge financial ramifications as there were many persons similarly situated. Thereafter, in this backdrop, on 13.12.2023, the matter was referred to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for examination in consultation with the Finance Department as well as Law Department. 5. The Government examined the matter in consultation with the Finance Department and the Finance Department on 19.07.2024 was advised to have the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General. 6. The matter was referred to the office of learned Advocate General and opinion dated 03.08.2024 was received from learned Advocate General and thereafter, the appeal was prepared and filed in the Court. 7. We are of the considered view that when limitation period of 30 days is prescribed for preferring a Letters Patent Appeal, the litigant has to be vigilant, more so, when litigant herein is not any illiterate rustic villager but is the State Government itself. 8. There is a reason and rationale as to why the limitation is prescribed and the rationale is that there has to be an element of finality to the judgments and orders passed by the Court. 9. Whenever a party suffers a judgment, obviously, there is another party which is benefitted from that adjudication. The party which is the beneficiary of the adjudication can obviously expect the same to be assailed either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter. The Court however cannot take such a party by surprise by condoning unexplained substantive delays in filing the appeals etc. as this will frustrate the law of limitation itself. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bherulal , (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654 has been pleased to hold as under:- 2. The Court however cannot take such a party by surprise by condoning unexplained substantive delays in filing the appeals etc. as this will frustrate the law of limitation itself. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bherulal , (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654 has been pleased to hold as under:- 2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Date: 2020.10.16 Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed. 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: “12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded! ……….. 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. ……….. 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.” 11. Thus it is apparent and evident from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) that the Courts cannot be a place for the Government to walk in when they chose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed and the Government has to be vigilant in the protection of its rights. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that some leverage should be given to the Government but then this leverage could be of 15-20 or 30 days beyond the period of limitation and not 241 days as is the case in the present appeal. Therefore, in light of above discussion, this application being devoid of merit is dismissed, so is the fate of accompanying appeal. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.