Condonation of delay cannot be granted to the State when it has been lethargic, tardy, and indolent, as such inaction creates vested rights for the opposing litigants.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The present appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.09.2023, whereby 18 writ petitions were disposed of, the lead case being CWP No. 787 of 2022, titled as Mohit Lath and others vs. State of H.P. and others.

The nine applications for condonation of delay arising out of the same judgment were dismissed on 27.2.2026 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Monika Thakur and others by giving the following reasons:-

“1. ………….. ……….. …………….

2. The State had initially filed only three Letters Patent Appeals against the said order, which were barred by limitation.

3. The application for condonation of delay for condoning the appeal in Mohit Lath’s case was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench, since delay was there of 213 days in filing the appeal and it was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that the Law Department had advised against filing the appeal, but the Personnel Department had insisted on the Finance Department to file the appeal and after about seven months of the date of the order and the date of receipt of the same, the Council of Ministers insisted to file the appeal.

4. Apparently, the State has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22733/2024 against the aforesaid order in Mohit Lath’s case before the Apex Court, whereby the implementation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge had been stayed on 04.10.2024.

5. On 10.12.2025, when one of the CMP(M)s, i.e. CMP(M) No. 2055 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others Vs. Monika Thakur & others, was listed before this Court, the following order was passed:-

“From the perusal of the file, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has decided as many as 18 cases, lead case being CWP No. 787 of 2022, titled Mohit Lath and others and State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The appeal filed by the State i.e. CMP(M) No. 1111 of 2024, being time barred was dismissed on 06.08.2024, against which an SLP(C) No. 22733 of 2024 is stated to be pending before the Apex Court, whereby, the implementation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge has been stayed on 04.10.2024 [Annexure A/VII]. It is now pointed out that ten more appeals have been filed in the balance cases and also one consolidated appeal along with an application for permission regarding the other left out cases has been filed. Necessary details be given and be supplied to the office, so that all the appeals can be tagged together.”

6. Today, nine separate appeals, i.e. CMP (M) Nos. 2055 of 2025, 2084 of 2025, 2286 of 2025, 2293 of 2025, 2316 of 2025, 2317 of 2025, 2318 of 2025, 2344 of 2025 & 2362 of 2025 have been listed, which are barred by 1 year 285 days, 2 years 2 months, 1 year 314 days, 1 year 360 days, 1 year 347 days, 1 year 361 days, 2 years, 1 year 325 days and 1 year 322 days, respectively.

7. A separate application bearing CMPST No. 69709 of 2025 has been filed in CMP(M) No. 2362 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & others VS. Vijay Kumar & others, for joint hearing of other appeals, whereby the delay of 688 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned.

8. The contents of the aforesaid application are interesting that the present set of appeals have been filed on account of the observations made on 10.12.2025 in Monika Thakur’s case, (supra) and in view of the issue which came up before the Apex Court as to whether other SLP(s) have been filed in the connected cases, which apparently led to the filing of the present appeals.

9. Reasoning given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in Vijay Kumar’s case is that the Department was apparently unaware that the separate appeals were required to be filed in each case. In such circumstances, the application dated 06.12.2025 for joint hearing of all the appeals, had been filed. The relevant part of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, reads as under:-

“2.That there had been delay of about 689 da