Himachal Pradesh High Court
Naresh Kumar And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 19 May, 2026
( 2026:HHC:18720 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.357 of 2026 in LPA
.
No.311 of 2026
Date of Decision:- 19.05.2026
Naresh Kumar and Others ....Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondents
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3-State.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.1453 of 2020, titled Himachal Government Teachers Union and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which is barred by 01 year and 298 days. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had not granted the benefits of the arrears to the petitioners for the period of three 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 09:59:58 :::CIS 2years prior to the date of filing of the application before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'The .
Tribunal') which is stated to be abolished in the year 2017, while granting the necessary relief of regular wages of the Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT).
2. The ground for justifying the delay in filing the appeal of has been made out in the application that a Review Petition No.123 of 2025, titled Surender Kumar and Others Vs. State of rt Himachal Pradesh and Others had been filed before this Court which was decided on 22.12.2025 and, therefore, there was a delay as such in filing the present appeal and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been sought.
3. Accordingly, counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge till 22.12.2025, as the appeal was then filed on 18.03.2026 and there is not substantial delay and the sufficient cause as such has been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
4. Counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, has pointed out that even the Review Petition was filed at a belated stage and though, the delay was condoned before the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Review Petition on ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 09:59:58 :::CIS 3 22.12.2025 and, therefore, it is submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out, as the Review Petition was filed on .
28.11.2025 before this Court, which then came to be dismissed eventually a year later.
5. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Review Petition had observed that there was a consent order that of the arrears are to be paid only from the date of filing of the application before the erstwhile Tribunal and therefore, the plea rt that the arrears were to be paid by the Government three years prior to the filing of the application before the Tribunal did not find favour to entertain the review application.
6. It was noted in the order dated 22.12.2025, passed in Review Petition that it is the discretion of the Court that what has been recorded in the judgment and what has happened in the Court and after gaining the benefit from the Court, the review petitioner's counsel not come with such plea for seeking the review of the judgment.
7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that similar relief has been granted to the other employees while referring to the order dated 06.07.2024, wherein the benefit of three years prior to the filing of the proceedings as such had been granted.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 09:59:58 :::CIS 48. It is pertinent to notice that the O.A. No.267 of 2017, was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal by 207 applicants and on .
abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was then transferred and registered as CWPOA No.1453 of 2020 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the order on 13.05.2024. The order is categorical and was passed in the of open Court. It has been mentioned that it was an oral order and there was a consent of the counsel for the parties at that point of time.
rt
9. No effort as such was made by the applicants-
appellants to file review immediately therefafter though they were over 200 employees and apparently, the cause of action has accrued only on account of the fact that some other employees as such had been granted the benefit vide office order dated 06.07.2024 which was then appended alongwith the review application (Annexure R-2).
10. It is thus apparent that the applicants-appellants were very much satisfied with the earlier order and the relief of the arrears with effect from the year 2014 instead of 2017 was claimed only on the strength that some other employees had got the said benefits. Apparently, the petitioners had filed the Review Petition even at a belated stage and prior to that none of ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 09:59:58 :::CIS 5 the persons out of 207 persons had opted to file the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) nor had they filed the review application .
within the prescribed period of 30 days. It is thus apparent that there is no sufficient cause made out to condone the prolonged delay, as having suffered a consent order and only on account of some other employees, having been granted the relief, when of they came to know that similar benefit of three years period had been given to another set of employees who had initiated rt separate legal proceedings.
11. In such circumstances, we find that the sufficient cause which is sought to be made out, does not apparently comeforth from the above facts and circumstances.
12. It is the settled principle that if there is a delay on account of prosecuting the legal rights as such, the same is not lightly to be condoned, in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court, passed in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025, titled Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others (2025) 4 Recent Civil Reports, 134 as a right accrues to the other side.
13. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to allow the application for condonation of delay of 01 year and 298 days ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 09:59:58 :::CIS 6 since even at the time of filing of the review, there was considerable delay.
.
14. A perusal of the review application before the learned Single Judge also goes on to show that no sufficient cause was made out and it was just a cryptic application that the review was drafted immediately after the order was supplied to the petitioner-
of appellant on 08.07.2024 and had been filed without any further delay.
15. rt In such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly, the present appeal also stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur) ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 09:59:58 :::CIS