( 2025:HHC:44603 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.717 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 18.12.2025 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ....Appellants Board Limited Versus Manohar Lal ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Katoch and Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocates. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5548 of 2024 titled Manohar Lal Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Others, wherein the writ petition was allowed and directions were issued to the respondents to consider the application of petitioner seeking employment assistance as preferred within the period prescribed in the Policy and to consider the same on merits in accordance with law within eight weeks. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The learned Single Judge had quashed and set aside the order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein the case of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that since the petitioners father had expired on 05.05.2017 and the application has been submitted after the lapse of five years which is not in terms of Clause No.8 of the Employment Assistance Policy. 3. The learned Single Judge had relied upon the directions passed by the Apex Court on 10.01.2022 in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, pertaining to extension of limitation due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioner had applied admittedly after one year of the prescribed limit to grant the said benefit. 4. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners father-Om Prakash was serving as Lineman in the appellant-Board and had died while in employment on 05.05.2017 and Family Pension had been duly sanctioned in favour of the petitioners mother namely-Geeta Devi. Unfortunately, she had also died on 14.09.2019 and therefore, the petitioner had applied for compassionate employment on 30.04.2022 which was received in the office of respondent-Board on 04.05.2022 leading to the rejection order on 14.07.2022. 3 5. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the petitioner was major at the time of death of his father and keeping in view the order passed by the Apex Court on 10.01.2022, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 had been excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The said principles had also been applied for the purpose of applying for compassionate appointments, keeping in view the purport of order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Apex Court, initially as reported in (2020) 19 SCC 10. 6. Counsel for the appellant-Board has sought to argue that the principle laid down by the Apex Court were only for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and could not be extended to the application for compassionate appointment. 7. Apparently, it is to be noticed from the fact that firstly father of the petitioner had died on 05.05.2017 and therefore, mother was drawing Family Pension and she had also died on 14.09.2019 and thereafter Family Pension would not have been admissible to the writ petitioner. 8. As noticed, the writ petitioner was major at the time of his father’s death and it is only on account of the death of the 4 mother on 14.09.2019, the need for applying for the compassionate appointment as such had arisen and cause of action arose and therefore it was specifically pleaded that the family of the deceased has been rendered destitute due to financial constraints. 9. It is in such circumstances, the relief as such has been granted and the issue of delay as such cannot come into picture as it is apparently a genuine case and the need was not felt as the Family Pension was being paid to the mother and the cause of action thus accrued more on 14.09.2019 for the first time. 10. In such circumstances, falling back on the principle laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in V.S. Palanivel Vs. Sri Lakshmi Hotels (P) Ltd., P. Sriram CS, Liquidator and Others (2025) 1 SCC 559, the extension of limitation is justified. 11. In the similar circumstances, the Apex Court had also permitted an auction purchaser as such to deposit the amount, in view of the difficulty being faced by the general public during COVID-19 Pandemic. Reliance can be placed upon para 40 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “40. It is evident from a perusal of Regulation 47- A, that the benefit of the said regulation was made available not only for initiation of any litigation, but also for computation of the timeline for completing 5 any task in connection with a liquidation process that could not be completed on account of declaration of the lockdown. We are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the word “Litigants” used in the order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the suo motu writ petition ought to be given a narrow interpretation so as to exclude a party like the auction-purchaser herein as stricto sensu, it was not a litigant who was required to file any petition/application/suit/appeal or other proceeding before any court/tribunal/authority within the period of limitation prescribed under a general law of limitation or under the special laws. It must be emphasised that a judgment can neither be read like a statute nor can the expressions used in a judgment be assigned a narrow meaning or curtailed. In the larger contextual background of the COVID-19 breakout, a liberal interpretation would have to be adopted and the auction- purchaser would be entitled to the benefit of the order dated 23-3-2020 read with Regulation 47-A of the 2016 IBIBI Regulations. The appellant cannot be heard to state that when the entire country was engulfed by the COVID-19 Pandemic and a countrywide lockdown was imposed on 25.03.2020 that was extended from time to time, the auction-purchaser ought to have deposited the balance sale consideration within the stipulated 90 days. In such a situation, a lenient view would have to be taken by the Court.” 12. In such circumstances, the arguments now raised by the learned Senior Counsel, would also stand covered by the decision of the Apex Court. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view, as only consideration has been directed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 6 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 18th December, 2025 (Munish Thakur)