IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.510 of 2025 Decided on: 06.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Er. Jiwan Singh Thakur ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellants: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate. Respondent proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.07.2025. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] CMP(M) No. 928 of 2025 In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit of the official, and the fact that since connected matters are pending, delay of 153 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered. Application stands disposed of. CMP 13675 of 2025 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in refilling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - LPA No. 510 of 2025 3. Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board is to the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.8039 of 2023, titled Jiwan Singh Thakur versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others. 4. The writ petitioner has not chosen to put in appearance and had been proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.07.2025. 5. Learned Single Judge had granted relief to the writ petitioner in view of the orders passed in CWP No.2108 of 2023, titled Bhagat Ram versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, decided on 31.05.2023 and also in CWP No.2421 of 2023, titled Amar Chand versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, decided on 15.06.2023. 6. We have noticed that in LPA No. 109 of 2024, titled State of H.P. & another versus Roshan Lal Khajuria & another alongwith connected matters decided on 22.05.2025, that the earlier orders passed in Bhagat Ram’s case had been re-called on 30.08.2024. 7. Accordingly, we had come to the conclusion that - 3 - cases for allowing the relief by subsequent orders passed in various judgments was not justified, keeping in view the fact that in Bhagat Ram’s case the orders stood recalled. 8. Resultantly, we had also noticed that rule in question had not been challenged and liberty had been given to the writ petitioners to challenge the same and also the Clause in the office memorandum. The matter is now stated to be pending before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by filing amended writ petition in Bhagat Ram’s case (supra). 9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge necessarily has to be set aside and we accordingly allow the appeal. Resultantly the writ petition is restored to its original position and the same be heard with CWP No.2108 of 2023 pending before the learned Single Judge. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 6th August, 2025 [himani/bhardwaj]