Gopal Sharma & ors. versus Bimla Garg & ors. a/w connected matter CMP(M) No.2048 of 2024 and CMP(M) No.438 of 2025 [Item No.D-4] CMP(M) No.2048 of 2024 09.07.2025 Present: Mr. Aashir Kaith, Advocate for Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 & 3-State. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6-Municipal Corporation, Shimla. CMP(M) No.438 of 2025 Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 & 3-State. CMP No.12147 of 2025 For the averments made in the application the same is allowed and disposed of. 2. Accordingly, applicants-appellants-Gopal Sharma and others are granted leave to file Letters Patent Appeal against judgment dated 23.05.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.3974 of 2020, titled as Smt. Bimla Garg Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 3. The application stands disposed of. CMP(M) No.2048 of 2024 & CMP(M) No.438 of 2025 4. Mr. B. Nandan Vashisht, Advocate [original counsel] for respondent No.1, submits that he was put to notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and further submits that he has no fresh instructions. It has already been noticed that respondent No.1 has been served in both cases, however, she is not coming forward. 5. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing these appeals. 6. Accordingly, we allow the applications for condonation of delay of 58 days in CMP(M) No.2048 of 2024 and 424 days’ delay in CMP(M) No.438 of 2025 filed by the Corporation, since against the judgment dated 23.05.2023, a Review Petition had been filed, which was dismissed on 20.05.2024. 7. Appeals be registered. 8. Applications stand disposed of. LPA No.356 of 2025 a/w LPA No.357 of 2025 9. Notice to the respondents afresh. 10. List these matters on 20.08.2025. CMP No.15874 of 2025 in LPA No.356 of 2025 & CMP No.15873 of 2025 11. It is contended that regularization of writ petitioner-respondent No.1 herein, has been ordered against the post of Clerk where she had been appointed as Class-IV employee and, therefore, could not have challenged her order of regularization at a belated stage only on account of the fact that she was performing duties of a Clerk. 13. In the appeal [LPA No.356 of 2025] filed on behalf of applicants-appellants [Gopal Sharma & ors.] it is contended that they were never arrayed as respondents in the petition filed by Bimla Garg [CWP No.3874 of 2020] and would be adversely affected by the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 14. Keeping in view the above, we stay the operation of impugned judgment dated 23.05.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.3847 of 2020, titled as Smt. Bimla Garg versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., till further order. Applications are disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 9, 2025 (Shivender/Bhardwaj)