State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Pratap Singh (Deceased), Through His Lrs, Vikrma Devi And Others

Ravi Malimath, J

CMP(M) Nos.2127 & 2128 of 2012

Appellants have filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC for bringing the LRs of respondent, Pratap Singh, on

record and setting aside abatement, if any. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application,

has also been filed. The notices having been issued, the LRs are represented by Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

For the reasons assigned therein, the delay in filing the application is condoned and abatement is set aside. The LRs of the deceased respondent are

ordered to be brought on record.

The applications are disposed off. LPA No.179 of 2009

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.2809 of 2008, dated 27.03.2009, in allowing the writ petition and

directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by protecting his pay based on the instructions issued by the Himachal Pradesh Finance

(Regulation) Department, vide Annexure A-11, dated 02.08.1983, the appellants have filed this appeal.

Learned Deputy Advocate General contends that a subsequent order has been passed by the Department, which requires to be followed. The

earlier order cannot be put in force for the same reason. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The

contention urged by the appellants was not urged before the learned Single Judge. There is no material on record to substantiate that the subsequent

instructions, if any, were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and it is being heard for the first time by this Court. It is stated that even a

statement of objections was not filed before the learned Single Judge.

Even otherwise, we may take note of the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2009 and presently we are in 2021. The order was only to

protect the pay of the respondent on the basis of instructions dated 02.08.1983. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

In the absence of any error committed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous

applications are disposed off accordingly.