The Chairman, HP State Electricity Board Ltd. and others vs. Prem Lal (deceased) through LRs. CMP(M) No.415 of 2025 21.08.2025 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvinay Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. CMP No.5744 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in re-filing the appeal, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CMP(M) No.415 of 2025 Heard counsel for the parties. In filing of the present appeal, there is a delay of 91 days. The same has been duly explained in the application filed for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay filed by the Board, one has to be conscious of the bureaucratic delays, impersonal nature of its functioning, institutional interest and hence a justice oriented liberal approach has to be taken while dealing with such applications. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in State of Manipur and others vs. Koting Lamkang, 2019 (10) SCC 408. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:- “7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned. against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned. 8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected.” Other than the aforesaid, it would also be appropriate to refer to judgment dated 09.10.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 titled Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Union of India and another. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:- “37. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court’s decision to condone the delay on account of the first respondent’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice- oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests.” Hence, for the reasons/sufficient cause stated in the application & the aforesaid position of law, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. FAO No.__________/2025 (Be registered) Admit. Call for the records. CMP No._______/2025 (Be registered) Since the awarded amount stands deposited with the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Chamba, operation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2023, passed by Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in WC Petition No.820 of 2014, CNR No.HPCH03-000060-2014, titled Prem Lal (deceased) through LRs. vs. The Chairman, HPSEBL, Shimla and others, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The awarded amount so deposited with the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Chamba be requisitioned to this Court for being re-invested herein. The application stands disposed of. ( Bipin C. Negi ) August 21, 2025 (KS) Judge