IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1193 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.01.2011. Jindu Ram …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. A penalty of stoppage of four increments was imposed against the petitioner on 13th December, 2006 and a copy of the said order is marked to the petitioner, who is working in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kullu. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order on 31st May, 2007. This appeal has been rejected only on the ground that it is not within limitation. Before dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is not within limitation, it would have been more than appropriate if the State would have granted the petitioner some time to explain the reasons for his delay. It is more than obvious from 2 the reading of the order that the petitioner was never apprised of the fact that his appeal is not going to be considered since it is time barred. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the petitioner is permitted to file an application for condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority who shall consider the same in accordance with law and in case it comes to the conclusion that the delay has been explained by the appellant shall decided the appeal on merits. The Appellate Authority if it is not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner may dismiss the appeal as time barred. 3. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Dasti copy. 5th January, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.