State of HP and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others CMP(M) No.1650 of 2024 22.05.2025 Present: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants-appellants/State. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr Abhishek Thakur and Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 7(a). Respondent No.8 is stated to have expired. CMP(M) No.496 & 497 of 2025 Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of legal heris of deceased respondent No.8. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the said non- applicants. The other non-applicants also do not intend to file any reply to the present applications. They have no objection, if in case, the applications are allowed and the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.8, are brought on record as is being sought in the application (CMP(M) No.496 of 2025). Respondent No.8 is stated to have expired on 29.03.2024. The same is evident form the Death Certificate appended along- with the application (CMP(M) No.496 of 2025) as Annexure A-I. The details of the legal heirs are given in Paragraph-4 of the application (CMP(M) No.496 of 2025). The same is in consonance with the details given in Legal Heirs Certificate appended along with the application (CMP(M) No.496 of 2025) as Annexure A-II. Since the right to sue inheres/survives in the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.8, details whereof, have been given in Paragraph-4 of the application (CMP(M) No.496 of 2025), therefore, they are ordered to be brought on record. For the bona fide reasons stated/sufficient cause shown in the application (CMP(M) No.497 of 2025), delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.8, is condoned and abatement, if any, is set aside. The applications stand disposed of. Amended memo of parties filed with the applications is ordered to be taken on record. Power of attorney on behalf of the newly added respondent stands already filed. CMP(M) No.1650 of 2024 In filing of the present appeal, there is a delay of 44 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 State, one has to be conscious of the bureaucratic delays, impersonal nature of the governmental 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. RFA No.______/2025 ( Be registered) Admit. Call for the records. CMP No._____of 2025 ( Be registered) During the pendency of the present appeal, operation and execution of judgment/award dated 20.04.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge(II), Shimla, H.P., in Ref. Petition RBT No.4-S/4 of 2019, shall remain stayed, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount along-with up-to-date interest accrued thereupon, within a period of eight weeks. The application stands disposed of. ( Bipin C. Negi ) May 22, 2025 (KS) Judge