Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sapna vs . State Of H.P. And Others on 7 March, 2026
Sapna vs. State of H.P. and others
CWP No.2877 of 2017
07.03.2026 Present: Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. D.N. Sharma,
.
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondents/State.
Ms. Dhanvanti, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj,
Advocate, for respondent No.5.
One of the contentions being raised in the present
of
petition is that the appointment of the petitioner, made on
3.8.2008, had been challenged by the present respondent
rt
No. 5 belatedly, i.e. 15 days after the said appointment. In
this context, attention is invited to Annexure P-3, the
judgment passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated
13.12.2012, wherein at internal page No. 2, it has been
recorded that the challenge to the appointment of the
petitioner was made by a joint representation dated
14.11.2007, admittedly after the lapse of 15 days of the
prescribed period of limitation.
In this respect, attention of this Court has been
invited to the judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No.
1096 of 2010 along with other connected matters,
specifically para 19 thereof. The same reads as follows:-
“19. Another legal contention is as to whether the
Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in
filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15
days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in
terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority
does not have the power under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the
guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, the
cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing
the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed
within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed,::: Downloaded on – 07/03/2026 20:29:49 :::CIS
since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone
the delay in filing the appeal”.
From the same, It is evident that there is no
.
provision for condonation of delay in respect of an appeal
filed belatedly before the Deputy Commissioner in the case
at hand.
of
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the
reply filed on behalf of the said respondent, wherein in para
rt
3 at page 46 it has been categorically mentioned that the
appeal had been filed on 16.8.2007 well within the period of
limitation, i.e. within 15 days from the date of appointment
dated 3.8.2007 in the case at hand.
In the aforesaid circumstances, let the records of
the case, specifically the appeal preferred before the Deputy
Commissioner, Solan, be called for on or before the next
date of hearing.
List after receipt of the record.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
7th March, 2026
(Tarun)
::: Downloaded on – 07/03/2026 20:29:49 :::CIS