Key Takeaways
- The Himachal Pradesh High Court has slammed the Cong govt for harassing poor litigants through repetitive appeals.
- The court has warned the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu government against pursuing similar appeals, which cause undue harassment and waste judicial resources.
- The State Litigation Policy of 2011 aims to prevent unnecessary delays and harassment in court proceedings.
Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has cautioned the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu government in the state against pursuing repetitive appeals in similar matters, leading to undue harassment of economically weaker citizens and wasting judicial resources.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma made these observations while dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 229 of 2023) filed by the State against a daily wager seeking service regularisation.
The petitioner, Gejam Ram, had worked as a daily wage ‘beldar’ in the Horticulture Department since July 1971 and completed 240 days of service each year from 1994 onwards.
Although his services were regularised in 2006 under the applicable policy, he sought regularisation from the date of completing eight years of continuous service.
Citing the precedent in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP (2010), Gejam Ram filed a writ in 2011, which was disposed of with a direction to consider his case.
The Supreme Court later upheld the Rakesh Kumar judgment, dismissing the State’s SLP in 2015. Despite this, the Department rejected Ram’s claim, citing non-existence of a work charge establishment in the department.
The State Administrative Tribunal quashed this rejection in 2016 and ordered reconsideration of his claim. However, the department failed to act, forcing Ram to file a contempt petition. Though partial compliance came in 2023, the High Court observed that the officers had shown defiance of orders, prompting the State to file the present LPA, which was dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Court noted with concern that similar appeals were being filed repeatedly, in violation of the State Litigation Policy of 2011, causing unnecessary delays and harassment. The bench refrained from imposing costs but warned the State not to repeat such conduct.
The contempt matter would now be heard on July 16, 2025, with both parties being directed to be present
