JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. This application has been filed by applicants/appellants H.P. State Electricity Board Limited (in short ‘the Board”) for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing appeal against Award dated 30 th June, 2022 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, under Workmen/Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 2. In the application, it was submitted that after passing of Award dated 30 th June, 2022, learned counsel for Board had applied for certified copy vide application dated 27 th July, 2022. Certified copy was attested on 30 th July, 2022. As no probable date of delivery was given, the copy was received/delivered on 5 th September, 2022. It was further stated in application that applicants-Board was under bonafide belief that limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal will start from the date of delivery of copy, whereas limitation expired on 31 st August, 2022. It was further stated in application that applicant-Board is a Company wherein decision is to be taken at various levels and after doing the said exercise, letter was written by the Joint Secretary (Law) to Senior Executive Engineer directing him to take action to assail the impugned Award and appeal was preferred thereafter. 3. During pendency of application, it was found that respondent No.5 had expired on 23 rd September, 2020. Thereafter, she was substituted through her legal heirs as respondents No.5(a) to 5(g) vide order dated 23 rd July, 2024. 4. On 16 th October, 2024, for request made on behalf of applicant/Board, time was granted by Court to file supplementary affidavit explaining the delay as occurred in filing the appeal. 5. Thereafter, supplementary affidavit was filed on 5 th December, 2024 stating therein as under:- “4. That it is the humble and respectful submissions of the applicants that the Ld. Employee Commissioner below passed the judgment in the present case on 30-06-2022 and the Ld. Counsel of the applicant had filed an application for obtaining the certified copy of judgment and order dated 30-06-2022 on 27-07-2022. The copy of the judgment was prepared and attested by the Superintendent of Senior Civil Judge Court No.1 Sarkaghat District Mandi HP on 30.07.2022. The copy of the judgment and order dated 30-06-2022 was received by the Ld. Counsel of the applicants on 05-09-2022 since as per the information supplied by the Ld. The copy of the judgment was prepared and attested by the Superintendent of Senior Civil Judge Court No.1 Sarkaghat District Mandi HP on 30.07.2022. The copy of the judgment and order dated 30-06-2022 was received by the Ld. Counsel of the applicants on 05-09-2022 since as per the information supplied by the Ld. Counsel no tentative date of delivery of the certified copy of the judgment and order was given. The Ld. Standing Counsel has never brought the factum of passing the impugned judgment and order dated 30-06-2022 in the knowledge of the Board' authorities prior to 07-09-2022. 5. That the copy of the judgment and order in question was supplied by the Ld. Counsel of the Board which was received on 07-09-2022 by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. Dharampur District Mandi HP and was marked to the Superintendent to put up the case forthwith. The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. Dharampur examined the matter and vide letter dated 14-09-2022 the same was sent to the Deputy Director, (Pers.) HPSEB Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan Shimla HP for further guidelines. 6. The case file was received in the office of the Deputy Director (Pers.), HPSEB Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan Shimla HP on 16-09-2022. After the receipt of the case file, the same was sent to the Legal Cell of the Board for seeking legal opinion. The case file was received by the Legal Cell of the Board on 17-09-2022. Since the Court case file being maintained in the Legal Cell was not traceable and it was requested to trace the case file and put up immediately. The case file was traced on 19.09.2022 and the same was put up for examination to the Law Officer. The Law Officer posted in the Legal Cell examined the case file on 20.09.2022 and the case file was put up to the Deputy Secretary (Law) on the same day. The Deputy Secretary (Law) has examined the case file and the same was submitted to the competent authority of the Board on 22-09-2022 for further directions and decision. 7. That the competent authority of the Board has desired to obtain the legal opinion of the Ld. Standing Counsel who was defending the HPSEB Ltd.'s cases before this Hon'ble Court. The case file was sent to the Ld. Standing Counsel of the Board on 23-09-2022 for further legal opinion. The Ld. 7. That the competent authority of the Board has desired to obtain the legal opinion of the Ld. Standing Counsel who was defending the HPSEB Ltd.'s cases before this Hon'ble Court. The case file was sent to the Ld. Standing Counsel of the Board on 23-09-2022 for further legal opinion. The Ld. Standing Counsel tendered his valuable legal opinion on 27- 09-2022 for filing an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-06-2022. The case file was received back in the Legal Cell of the Board on 28-09-2022 and was put up to the competent authority for further decision on 01-10-2022. The competent authority of the Board accords permission to file an appeal against the judgment and order in question on 17.10.2022. The case file was received back in the Legal Cell of the Board on 18-10-2022 and the draft letter was prepared and was put for approval and signature of the Competent authority of the Board on the same day. The draft letter was further placed before the authorities for approval and signature by the Deputy Secretary (Law) on 26-10-2022 and finally, the draft letter was signed and approved by the competent authority of the Board on 19-11-2022. The draft letter was received back in the Legal Cell of the Board on 23-11-2022 and the decision of the competent authority for filing an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-06-2022 was conveyed to the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. Dharampur District Mandi HP on 23-11-2022. 8. That the letter dated 23-11-2022 was received in the office of Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. on 28-11-2022. As per the decisions of the higher authorities of the Board, the matter was taken up with the Ld. Standing Counsel of the Board who was representing HPSEB Ltd. before this Hon'ble Court for preparation of the appeal and the complete records of the case was also submitted to him on 07-01-2023. 9. That the Ld. Counsel of the Board vide letter dated 05-01- 2023 had intimated that for the maintainability of the appeal it has to be accompanied by the receipt of the deposit of the entire awarded amount and the same is required to be deposited with the Ld. Employee Commissioner. The Ld. 9. That the Ld. Counsel of the Board vide letter dated 05-01- 2023 had intimated that for the maintainability of the appeal it has to be accompanied by the receipt of the deposit of the entire awarded amount and the same is required to be deposited with the Ld. Employee Commissioner. The Ld. Standing Counsel of the Board had prepared the appeal and the present application and same was filed before this Hon’ble Court on 7.1.2023 without further delay. The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd., Dharampur District Mandi HP has deposited a sum of Rs. 13,11,276/- with the Ld. Employee Commissioner Sarkaghat District Mandi HP on 17-01-2023 vide Cheque No. 800989 dated 16-01-2023 after completion of codal formalities. The copy of the deposit receipt was handed over to the Ld.Standing Counsel of the Board on 18-01-2023. 10. That it is the further humble and respectful submissions of the applicants that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither willful nor intentional but is bonafide one and this Hon'ble High Court may take judicial notice of the fact that in the administrative hierarchy to reach at the final decision, the files have to be routed/moved through the table to table and office to the office which is a time-consuming process. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Government/administrative decision is not a decision of an individual and the authority who is competent to make the final decision some sometimes not available or is busy in executing other works. The applicants craves before this Hon'ble Court that a lenient view may kindly be taken in the present case keeping in view the submissions made in the foregoing paras and the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned to advance the substantial cause of justice.” 6. Though no reply/response has been filed to the application or to the supplementary affidavit, however learned counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that applicant/Board has failed to explain sufficient cause which prevented the Board from filing the appeal within limitation period. Though no reply/response has been filed to the application or to the supplementary affidavit, however learned counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that applicant/Board has failed to explain sufficient cause which prevented the Board from filing the appeal within limitation period. It has been contended that details of day-to-day movement of file in various offices before the authorized Officer/Officials is not a sufficient cause to justify the delay in filing the appeal particularly when as stated in paras 7 and 8 of supplementary affidavit, the draft letter placed before the Authority for approval and signature by Deputy Secretary (Law) on 26 th October, 2022, was signed and approved by competent authority of Board on 19 th November, 2022, and after receiving the letter by Senior Executive Engineer on 28 th November, 2022, the appeal was preferred on 7 th January, 2023. It has been contended that applicant-Board has failed to establish the due diligence for entire period of delay especially between 26 th October, 2022 to 19 th November, 2022 and from 28 th November, 2022 till filing of appeal i.e. 7 th January, 2023. 7. Learned counsel for respondents to substantiate his plea has placed reliance upon pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Union of India and another, (2023) 10 SCC 531 ; order dated 29 th November, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 titled State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramkumar Choudhary; order dated 21 st November, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 935- 936 of 2021 titled Rajneesh Kumar and another vs. Ved Prakash and judgment dated 9 th September, 2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in OMP (M) No. 26 of 2024 with Arb. Case No. 790 of 2024 titled State of HP and another vs. M/s Mengi Engineering Company. 8. Learned counsel for applicants/appellants has submitted that though, initially, the action of applicants/Board through its Officers and Officials was not stated elaborately but the delay, as mentioned in para 5 of application, was stated to have occurred on account of movement of file to take decision at various levels. 8. Learned counsel for applicants/appellants has submitted that though, initially, the action of applicants/Board through its Officers and Officials was not stated elaborately but the delay, as mentioned in para 5 of application, was stated to have occurred on account of movement of file to take decision at various levels. She has further submitted that said cause stands duly explained and substantiated in the details given in supplementary affidavit filed by applicant after seeking leave of Court. 9. It has been further submitted that in present matter, there is delay of 124 days and from the details given in affidavit, it is apparent that file was dealt with promptly at various levels, whereas in the cases, referred on behalf of respondents, there was inordinate unexplained delay which caused the dismissal of application for condonation of delay in those cases. 10. It has been submitted that in Ramkumar Choudhary’s case there was delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and matter remained pending for seeking permission to file appeal with the Law Department for3 years and there was no explanation for those 3 years. 11. It has been further submitted that in Rajneesh Kumar’s case there was delay of 534 days and applicants therein were fully aware about pendency of counter claim but this fact had been deliberately and willfully concealed and was not stated in application for restoration and thus for not approaching the Court with clean hands, rather suppressing the material facts deliberately and intentionally regarding the knowledge of pendency of counter claim, the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected. 12. Further, it has been stated that in OMP (M) No. 26 of 2024, the matter was related to delay in filing objections under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act wherein the objections were filed after expiry of 120 days i.e. even after extended limitation period of 30 days and therefore, it has been contended that in case of filing of objections under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there is no provision for condonation of delay after lapse of 30 days from the date of expiry of limitation period of 90 days. 13. 13. Learned counsel for Board has also referred para 30 of judgment passed in Sheo Raj Singh’s case to canvass that facts and circumstances in present case, as explained in supplementary affidavit, warrant that delay in filing the appeal in present matter be condoned.Paras 30 to 32 read as under:- “30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. 31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. 32. An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.” 14. It has been further contended that time taken by competent Authority between 26 th October, 2022 to 19 th November, 2022 for signing the approval for filing appeal cannot be said inordinate delay in granting the approval as it was granted within 23 days and further that immediately after obtaining the approval, after 28 th November, 2022, documents were submitted to the Standing Counsel of Board, who in turn, vide letter dated 5 th January, 2023 had intimated to ensure the deposit of amount of compensation with the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, and simultaneously, he had prepared the appeal which was filed in Registry on 7 th January, 2023. However, the amount of Rs.13,11,276/- could be arranged a bit later and same was deposited with Commissioner, Employees Compensation on 17 th January, 2023 vide cheque dated 16 th January, 2023 after completing the codal formalities. 15. Though, there is some laxity on the part of either counsel representing the Board or the Officers looking after the matter before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, however, in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is inordinate unexplained delay in filing the appeal particularly when there is nothing on record to rebut the plea taken and explanation given in application as well as supplementary affidavit filed in support thereof. The judgments in Ramkumar Choudhary and Rajneesh Kumar’s cases have been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. The facts of the present case are neither similar nor nearer to similarity of those matter. 16. The judgments in Ramkumar Choudhary and Rajneesh Kumar’s cases have been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. The facts of the present case are neither similar nor nearer to similarity of those matter. 16. From the contents of affidavit and submissions made by learned counsel for applicants, it cannot be said that details given in affidavit and submissions made by learned counsel for applicants are merely excuse and not reasonable explanation. The applicants-Board has succeeded to establish its due diligence in pursuing the matter and to point out that delay was not intentional or willful. 17. After taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and material placed on record, I am of considered opinion that in present case reasons for delay in filing the appeal stand explained and there was sufficient cause which prevented the applicant-Board from filing the appeal within limitation period. 18. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 19. Appeal be registered. 20. Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.