Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The State Of Hp Through vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And on 28 March, 2022

Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya

                                   -1-


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                 ON THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                                BEFORE




                                                          .
                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA





                                   &
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA





                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION Nos. 621 2021
    Between:-

    1.     THE STATE OF HP THROUGH




           ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
           (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT
           OF HP, SHIMLA-2, H.P.

    2.     THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH

           SERVICES HP, SHIMLA-9.
                                                ....PETITIONERS

           (BY SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SENIOR ADDITIONA


           ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                        AND
           RUPAWANTI DAUGHTER OF




           SHRI CHATRO RAM, RESIDENT
           OF VILLAGE PATI, POST OFFICE





           JASSOURGARH, TEHSIL CHURAH,
           DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL
           PREDESH, PRESENTLY WORKING





           AS STAFF NURSE AT T.V. HOSPITAL
           CHAMBA, DISTRICT CHAMBA.
                                        ....RESPONDENT

           (SH. NARESH VERMA, ADVOCATE ON BAHALF OF SH.
           VIJAY BIR SINGH, ADVOCATE).

                This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble

    Ms. Justice Sabina passed the following:




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2022 20:11:01 :::CIS
                                    -2-


                      ORDER

By way of the instant writ petition filed on .

11.12.2020, the petitioners-State have challenged the order dated 2.5.2018, passed by the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2323 of 2018, titled Rupawanti vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

2. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Tribunal passed the same by relying on its earlier order dated 11.1.2018, passed in T.A. No. 4478 of 2015, titled Parvati Sharma & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has invited attention of the Court towards order dated 6.1.2021 passed in CWP No. 5764 of 2020, titled State of H.P. & Anr.

Versus Parwati Sharma & Ors., vide which the writ petition filed by the petitioners-State against the order of the Tribunal in Parwati Sharma's case was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is also contended that the petitioner-State filed a Special Leave to Appeal No. 6453/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.6.2021.

::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2022 20:11:01 :::CIS -3-

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the writ petition in the case of Parwati .

Sharma was not dismissed on merits, but on delay and laches and the delay in the present case is not as much as in the case of Parwati Sharma.

5. We have examined the matter on that aspect as well.

The order in the case of Parvati Sharma was delivered by the Tribunal on 11.1.2018 and the writ petition against the aforesaid order was filed before this Court on 11.12.2020. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13348 of 2020, titled The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Vs. Chaitram Maywade, decided on 27.10.2020, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 971/2020, titled The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Prem Chandra, decided on 27.11.2020 and SLP(C) Diary No(s). 19059 of 2020, titled Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & Ors., decided on 18.12.2020, held that the delay on the part of the Government vis-à-vis the delay on the part of the private parties cannot be distinguished in the matter of belatedly approaching the Court without sufficient cause.

The order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned herein, was passed on 2.5.2018, relying on its earlier ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2022 20:11:01 :::CIS -4- order dated 11.1.2018 passed in Parvati Sharma' case. The writ petition against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in .

Parvati Sharm's case was filed belatedly before this Court on 11.12.2018. Even though the learned Senior Additional Advocate General pressed on the merits of the matter, but was not in a position to differentiate the reasons for delay that why the writ petition was not filed immediately. The present petition is also dismissed for the same reasons, on which the writ petition in the case of Parvati Sharma, was dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.



                                             (Sabina)


                                              Judge




                                         (Satyen Vaidya)
    28th   March, 2022                      Judge
            (kck)






                                         ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2022 20:11:01 :::CIS