State of H.P. and another vs. Parmod Singh and others CMP(M) No.770 of 2026 [Item D-7] 24.09.2026 Present: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the applicant/appellant/State. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CMP(M) No.770 of 2026 An application has been filed for condonation of delay by the State, which is barred by 475 days, in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The sufficient cause pleaded is that after downloading the copy of the judgment in the office on 09.12.2024, the matter was taken up for obtaining the approval of the Government for regularization of the services of the present respondent from the back date, i.e. 17.08.1999, and it was accordingly noticed that in the case of a similarly situated Junior Engineer, such retrospective regularization had been granted on the basis of a resolution of the Nagar Panchayat dated 17th August, 1999, which could not have been done without the HOD having issued the necessary instructions and the matter having been approved by the State Government, including the Administrative Department, Finance and Law Departments. Thereafter, a decision was taken to file the Letters Patent Appeal and inter-departmental consultation took place before the appeal could be filed. The application has been contested by filing a reply. The judgment in the Civil Writ Petition was passed on 25.10.2024 and thereafter the present appeal has been filed. The explanation furnished for the delay cannot be said to be wholly satisfactory, particularly when the matter appears to have travelled from one department to the other. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was regularized against the post of Junior Engineer on 28.06.2007 by the respondent Department and the petitioner joined against the post of Junior Engineer on regular basis on 06.07.2007, without challenging the earlier regularization need to be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs. v. Union of India & another, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein it has been held that while considering an application for condonation of delay, merits are also required to be kept in mind. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a case is made out for condonation of delay, conditionally. The application is accordingly allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the writ petitioner by the State. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. ____ of 2026 & CMP No. ___ of 2026 Be registered. On taking steps within one week, issue notice to respondent 2, returnable for 26th November, 2026. Till further orders, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. List on 26th November, 2026.00 (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 24th September, 2026 (Tarun Singh)