The court emphasized timely filing of appeals and held that administrative delays do not constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delays in legal procedures.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) .

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in CWPOA No.7658 of 2020 titled Veena Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 28.08.2023, whereby the directions were issued to the present appellants-State to re-fix the pension of the petitioner in accordance with the notification

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

dated 12.06.2018 with effect from the date on which said notification has come into force and the payment of arrears to the petitioner was directed to be paid within eight. weeks from the date of passing of the judgment.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is barred by 351 days as per appellants-State’s application, whereas the office has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by 1 year, 1 month & 20 days. r

3. The application has been opposed by the writ petitioner by filing reply that there is a delay of more than 351 days in filing the LPA and no basis as such has been shown for d elaying the matter and the appeal should have been filed in time and the appellants cannot take any advantage of their own lethargy only on the ground that the matter was examined at various levels.

4. We have gone through the application filed by the appellants-State which would go on to show that the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.08.2023, the downloaded copy of judgment had been sent by Administrative Department i.e. Department of Revenue vide letter dated 13.10.2023 to applicant-appellant No.2 through the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division and the details had to be called for. The matter was then taken up with the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Himachal Pradesh, Shimla and the case has been returned on 06.11.2023 to obtain the concurren.ce/advice of the Finance Department in a time bound manner. The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division had sent the file to the Principal Secretary-cum-FC (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 13.12.2023 for examination and further necessary action. Trhe Department of Finance (Pension) had advised the Administrative Department to file LPA in the matter in consultation with Law Department and the matter was sent for legal opinion which was given on 03.06.2024. Thus, apparently f or a period of more than six months, the delay has not been explained, as the matter was pending with the Department of Finance (Pension) and the Administrative Department.

5. Apparently, thereafter the writ petitioner had also filed the Execution Petition No.133/2024 before this Court for non-implementation of the judgment dated 28.08.2023 and the appeal was only filed on 17.10.2024, which was again after a period of four months from the date the legal advice was given. Thus, for on two separate period’s of six months and four months each, the appellants-State has not given any plausible reason for the sufficient cause having been made out.

6. Counsel for the appellants-State has fallen back on Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024 titled Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , decided on 21.03.2025 to submit that the delay of two years and four months condoned by the High Court as such was upheld by the Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been dismissed.

7. We have gone through the said judgment, apparently in the said case therer was an issue of allotment of land for public purpose which was being claimed by the State and the private litigant as such had filed Execution Petition for taking the possession of the land. In such circumstances, it was held that in t he peculiar facts and circumstances, the indulgence which had been granted by the High Court as such was not to be interferred with, keeping in view the observations made in Sheo Raj Singh Vs. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 531 , wherein it had also been observed that the prima facie one is to look into the merits of the appeal