Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
L. Narayana Swamy, Anoop Chitkara, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.- Appellants
Vs.
Lalita Sharma and Ors. - Respondent
C.M.P.(M) No. 1847 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2021
Delay in Filing Appeal - Permanent Absorption as Clerk in Education Department - The court dismissed the appeal and condoning the delay in filing the appeal due to the pendency of previous proceedings was not considered sufficient. The appellant's attempt to file a fresh appeal was rejected as the matter had already been re-considered and the petitioner was permanently absorbed as a Clerk in the Education Department.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed an appeal against a judgment allowing the petitioner to be permanently absorbed as a Clerk in the Education Department. The State also filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and the application to condone the delay, stating that the pendency of previous proceedings was not a sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the present appeal.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, permanent absorption of the petitioner as a Clerk in the Education Department, seniority of officials in the Education Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The pendency of previous proceedings alone was not considered sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The matter had already been re-considered, and the petitioner was permanently absorbed as a Clerk in the Education Department.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and the pending application to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
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 Vide order dated 26.06.2018, the said CMP(M) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action.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. 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
