IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Review Petition No.34 of 2025 Decided on: 23.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Nand Kala ...Petitioner Versus The Municipal Commissioner Shimla …Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Sheetal Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks review of Nand Kala Vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla2. 2. The review has been prayed on following grounds pleaded in para-3 of the review petition: - “3. That on the day of hearing i.e. 28.03.25 Ld. Counsel for the respondent has tender a copy of notification dated 23.02.22 issued by Govt. of HP and same copy was also presented to this Hon'ble Court by the counsel for petitioner along with notification of Govt. of India and inadvertently Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted before this Hon'ble Court that respondent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No.4958 of 2023 decided on 28.03.2025 - 2 - has not adopted it. However, at this juncture Ld. Counsel for petitioner objected that Ld. Counsel for respondent is making only oral statement there is nothing on record, upon this Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that his statement be recorded at Bar. Thereafter impugned order was passed. It is respectfully submitted there that respondent has adopted the notification of Govt. of India (Annexure R-2 colly) in the year 2023, whereby if employee died while in service, his family will get pension as if deceased employee was governed by OPS. And hence present petition is filed. Copy of notification of adoption by respondent along with notification of Govt. of India is annexed as Annexure R-2(Colly).” 3. Attribution to oral submissions allegedly made during hearing of the case, cannot be accepted as ground of review. Guiding principles for exercise of review jurisdiction have been summarized as under by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another3:- “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - 16.2 A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2 A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when 3 (2024) 2 SCC 362 - 3 - circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3 An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” 16.5 A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” 16.6 Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7 An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8 Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 4. The grounds urged for review do not fall within the aforesaid parameters. Petitioner’s endevour in this review petition is to carve out her eligibility to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. For this purpose, she has already been permitted under the judgment sought to be reviewed, to file a separate writ petition with appropriate and necessary pleadings. No case for review is made out. The review petition - 4 - is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 23, 2025 R.Atal