2025:HHC:43921 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 2143 of 2025 Decided on: 15.12.2025 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … applicants/Appellants Versus Sh. Ram Lal … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the applicant : Mr. Sidarth Jhalta, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Notice not issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made by the applicants for condonation of 305 days’ delay in filing the letters patent appeal against the judgment passed by Hon’ble Single Judge dated 23.10.2024, in CWPOA No. 2871 of 2020, titled as Ram Lal vs. State of H.P. and others, in terms whereof, the respondents therein, i.e. present applicants, were directed to confer the work charge status upon the writ petitioner upon 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:43921 completion of 10 years of continuous service in tribal area notionally with all consequential benefits. 2. The reasons which are spelled out in the application as to why the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter are that after the decision in the writ petition on 23.10.2024, the applicants came to know about the judgment only when copy thereof was received from the Counsel of the petitioner on 01.04.2025 along with his letter dated 25.03.2025. It is further mentioned in the application that thereafter applicant No. 2 sent the matter to the office of Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of H.P. for obtaining necessary legal advice and advice was received vide letter dated 04.06.2025 to assail the judgment. The advise was conveyed to the Executive Engineer HPPWD, Karchham Division at Bhabanagar vide Letter dated 17.06.2025. Thereafter, on receipt of the complete record, the appeal was prepared and further processed for vetting through Superintending Engineer, HPPWD vide letter dated 08.07.2025. 3. A perusal of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Single 3 2025:HHC:43921 Judge demonstrates that it is not as if the applicants were ex parte before the learned Single Judge. The State was being represented by learned Additional Advocate General. Thus, it is not a case wherein the judgment in issue was passed at the back of the present applicants/appellants. In these circumstances, when the present applicants were duly represented before the learned Single Judge, but obvious, the factum of pronouncement of the judgment was in the knowledge of the applicants. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that they are not aware about the pronouncement of the judgment, cannot be believed. Further the conduct of the applicants otherwise also does not entail any indulgence from this Court for the reason that even in terms of the contents of the application, the factum of the judgment passed by the learned Court came into the knowledge of the applicants when a copy of the judgment was received in the office of the Department through the Counsel for the petitioner on 01.04.2025. Even from 01.04.2025, it has taken more than five months for the applicants to assail the judgment. 4. Therefore, in view of above discussion, as this Court 4 2025:HHC:43921 is of the considered view that delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the applicants, this application is dismissed, so is the fate of the accompanying appeal and other miscellaneous application(s). (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge December 15, 2025 (narender)