( 2026:HHC:2308 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.2178 of 2025 and LPA No.9 of 2026 Decided on: 06.12.2026 HPSEBL ....Appellant Versus Sudesh Kumar ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.2178 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 98 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.9 of 2026 3. Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4513 of 2025 titled Sudesh Kumar Vs. HPSEBL, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 decided on 27.03.2025, wherein the directions were issued to the respondent to pay the balance amount, if any, on account of leave encashment, as well as arrears of revised pay scale to the petitioner. 4. Apparently, as per the instructions received by the counsel for the appellant-Board herein, the matter was to be listed on 28.05.2025 for compliance, however, the record shows that the matter was listed thereafter also. 5. In the present appeal, which is now barred by limitation, the ground taken as such is that no directions or instructions were ever issued by the competent authority of the appellant-Board, apart from the other grounds. 6. A perusal of the writ record would also go on to show that apparently, the writ petition was filed on 25.03.2025 and disposed of two days later. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the ground taken as such, it would be more appropirate, if the present appellant-Board files the necessary application before the learned Single Judge by justifying their stand now taken in the present appeal as it is not for this Court now to take the contrary view, since the order is clear that counsel representing the appellant-Board had received 3 the categorical instructions for payments of certain amounts, which had already been released in favour of the employee. The appellant-Board would also be well advised as such to ensure that such instructions be issued by the authority to the concerned officials and necessary affidavit should be filed as it is always in reciept of the advance copy of the writ petition, so that such situations do not recur. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed off with the aforesaid liberty to take appropriate steps. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 6th January, 2026 (Munish Thakur)