2025:HHC:6015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.439 of 2024 a/w LPA No.90 of 2025 Decided on: 12.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kashyap ...Applicant/Appellant Versus Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation. ...Non-Applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant/ : Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. appellant For the non-applicant : Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate. respondent. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] CMP[M] No.439 of 2024 a/w LPA No.90 of 2025 The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 04.01.2023, passed in CWP No.2865 of 2019, titled as Rajesh Kashyap Versus Himachal Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation. 2. As per office report, the appeal is barred by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:6015 - 2 - 276 days, though in the application for condonation of delay, the delay has been calculated only of 140 days by the applicant. 3. We are not convinced that sufficient cause is made out in the application for condonation of delay, as apparently, from the reading of the application, it is clear that applicant had also filed a contempt petition before this Court for seeking implementation of judgment as writ petition had been partly allowed to the extent that respondent-Corporation had been directed to pay to the applicant/petitioner the wages of Junior Engineer [Civil] w.e.f. 27.12.2014 till the date of his superannuation. However, the claim for the said benefit from 19.02.2011 had been denied by learned Single Judge on the ground that it was not a pleaded case of the applicant that there was a vacancy available by way of promotion of Feeder Cadre. 4. The said judgment was also the subject matter of LPA No.66 of 2023 decided on 24.07.2023, by the Coordinate Bench, in which learned counsel for the present applicant/appellant had also put in appearance and contested the same and the said LPA was 2025:HHC:6015 - 3 - dismissed on 24.07.2023. Applicant/appellant was thus well aware about the pendency of the appeal filed by Respondent-Corporation who chose not to file cross-objection or a separate Letters Patent Appeal to pray for the relief which was denied by learned Single Judge from the period of 19.02.2011 till 27.12.2014. Thus, in that manner, he accepted the judgment of learned Single Judge. 5. It is also clear from the application for condonation of delay that at a subsequent point of time some information was taken by his colleague from the Department that there were some posts of Junior Engineers [Civil] were lying vacant and it was at that point of time the applicant/appellant decided to file an appeal which would be clear from the fact that certified copy was then applied only on 27.09.2023, after the decision of LPA on 24.07.2023. 6. In view of above, we are not inclined to accept the averments made in the application that applicant is a layman and does not know much about the law of limitation, as apparently, he not only sought execution of the said order by filing contempt petition, 2025:HHC:6015 - 4 - but also contested the Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Resultantly, from the application itself no sufficient cause is made out to condone delay in filing the appeal. 8. Even otherwise, the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the pleadings and now by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Part C of Rule 13 of HP High Court Writ Rules, to place additional material on record in the form of RTI supplied would open up a Pandora’s box as it was not the pleaded case of the applicant that there were any vacancies in the feeder cadre as such. 9. In such circumstances, keeping in view the overall background of the case, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 10. Peculiar fact in the present case is that applicant had himself accepted the said decision and rather prayed for enforcement of the relief which had been granted to him and by non-filing of cross- objections or cross-appeal at that point of time, the applicant now cannot plead sufficient cause as such 2025:HHC:6015 - 5 - to condone the inordinate delay. 11. Resultantly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge March 12, 2025 [Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev]