HPSEBL and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Item No. (D-6) CMP(M) No.207 of 2025 20.11.2025 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meenakshi Katoch, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. Mohinder Verma and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent. CMP(M) No.207 of 2025. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, which is barred by 222 days. 2. The learned Single Judge had decided the case on 10.01.2024, passed in CWP No.11001 of 2023 titled Rajesh Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Others. 3. In the application, it is mentioned that the applicants-appellants through their counsel had applied for certified copy of the judgment before the Registry of this Court on 13.08.2024 and the Section Officer of the Registry of this Court had certified the copy of the judgment on 20.08.2024 and the same was received by the applicants- appellants on 20.08.2024. 4. The sufficient cause is sought to be made out that the counsel earlier representing the HPSEBL-Board as such was appointed as Additional Advocate General in the Office of learned Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh vide office order dated 19.06.2024. 5. The application had been opposed by filing a reply on the ground that the order had been sent to the concerned official on 24.07.2024. 6. In the reply, filed by the writ petitioner it is further brought to the notice of this Court that he had already been reinstated in service vide order dated 24.03.2025 subject to the final outcome of the present appeal. It has been admitted that the certified copy as such had been certified by the Section Officer duly on 20.08.2024. 7. The supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicants-appellants for giving the justification to this Court that the writ petition came up for hearing on 09.01.2024 and the matter was adjourned for 10.01.2024 and on that day the learned Single Judge had quashed and set aside the impugned termination order dated 19.12.2023 and the respondent-Board authorities were directed to reinstate the non-applicant/petitioner as a Junior T-Mate. It is also submitted that the applicants-appellants had visited the website of this Court on 10.01.2024, 11.01.2024 and 12.01.2024 for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the impugned order/judgment has been uploaded on the website or not. Thereafter, the Court was closed for winter vacation on and w.e.f. 13.01.2024 to 25.02.2024 and re-opened on 26.02.2024 and during this period counsel(s) were out of station. 8. Counsel who had argued the matter before the learned Single Judge was appointed as Additional Advocate General and therefore new counsel as such has justified the delay in filing the present appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has already been reinstated in service vide order dated 24.03.2025. 9. Keeping in view the delay and the settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Smt. Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, that each and every day’s delay is not to be explained, we are of the considered opinion that the application is liable to be allowed as sufficient cause has been made out. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 10. The present application stands disposed off. LPA No.804 of 2025 11. List for consideration on 30.12.2025. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 20th November, 2025 (Munish Thakur)