2025:HHC:26996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1185 of 2025 & Review Petition No.62 of 2025 Decided on: 07.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of HP & ors. ...Applicants/Petitioners Versus Kamla Devi & ors. ...Non-applicants/Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the applicants/: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional petitioners Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] CMP No.19166 of 2025 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 20 days in re-filing the review petition. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of. Accordingly, delay in re-filing the review petition is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CMP(M) No.1185 of 2025 & Review Petition No.62 of 2025 3. The present Review Petition has been filed, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:26996 - 2 - which is barred by 1259 days, as per the report of the office. Counsel for the State has vehemently submitted that the review has been preferred on account of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).21917 of 2022, arising out of the judgment/order dated 22.10.2021, passed in LPA No.133 of 2021. 4. Counsel for the State has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21917 of 2022, decided on 25.04.2023, has granted liberty to approach this Court by way of a review petition. Therefore, the matter should be heard on merits. The complete order passed by the Apex Court reads as under:- “ Nobody has appeared for the respondents, despite the matter having been placed for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted his best to submit that the benefits in question were granted to all the incumbents including the respondent No.1 only with effect from 12.01.2017 and not from 28.12.2016, the date when decision was taken on merger of the 12 store keeper in the cadre of clerks. In the perusal of the order passed by the High Court, it appears that the fact as sought to be submitted before us about the other similarly situated candidates having been granted the benefits only w.e.f. 12.01.2017 was either not projected before the High Court or had not gone into consideration. Upon our making these observations, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to 2025:HHC:26996 - 3 - withdraw with liberty to approach the High Court by way of a review petition. Taking note of the totality of circumstances, permission granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed, while leave it open for the petitioners in making a request before the High Court for merit consideration of review petition with reference to the fact that this petition has remained pending in this Court until now. We will also leave it open for the petitioners in taking recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law after decision of the review petition.” 5. Perusal of the said order would go on to show that merit consideration was to be there and this Court was not to be prejudiced by the fact that matter remained pending before the Apex Court between 22.10.2021 to 25.04.2023. However, apparently, there is a delay of almost two years in preferring the review petition, which was initially filed on 03.04.2025, thereafter re-filed on account of objections raised, on 18.06.2025. 6. The reason, as such, given in the application for condonation of delay is that the certified copy of the judgment was supplied to the appellant by the office of District Attorney, Legal Cell, Government of H.P. New Delhi, vide letter dated 12.07.2023. However, the record of the matter was placed in the voluminous records of 2025:HHC:26996 - 4 - the disposed of cases and requisite action could not be taken. The records of the decided SLP were only searched during the 1st week of January, 2025, and the record of the matter was located. Thereafter, the process was initiated for filing the review petition, and steps were taken. The review petition was thereafter prepared, and the draft was submitted for vetting on 23.01.2025, and thus, the delay occurred. The plea taken is that no prejudice would be caused to the non-applicant and that it would advance the cause of justice. 7. It is with regret, as such, that we propose to dismiss the present application on account of the negligence of the State and its total inaction for a period of two years. It is to be kept in mind that the dispute in issue was regarding grant of the benefit of merger against the post of Clerk for the purpose of seniority and financial benefits, which were granted by the Division Bench vide order dated 22.10.2021, by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge who had only granted notional benefits. 8. Apparently, the lowly placed Class-III employee actually had not appeared before the Apex Court and it is 2025:HHC:26996 - 5 - not open for the State to say that no prejudice would be caused to her when the matter is sought to be revived. The inaction of the State in filing the review petition after a period of two years is totally unjustified solely on the ground that certified copy had been placed in the records of the disposed of cases. 9. In the present times, when records are easily available at the click of a button and the main record is with the appellant-department, we fail to understand the logic behind the explanation now put forth regarding the relevance of the certified copy of the order of the SLP. The intention of the Apex Court, as such, while granting liberty, was only to condone the period between 22.10.2021 and 25.04.2023. The order did not imply that the State could sit pretty for another two years before filing the review. 10. Thus, the present application is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563. 11. Resultantly, we feel that a fit closure has to be given to the issue in controversy, which the State 2025:HHC:26996 - 6 - continues to pursue relentlessly at the cost of a Class-III employee. 12. Accordingly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay for 2 year’s the period from the date the SLP was decided till the filing of the present review petition, as the cause put forward in the application is not liable to be accepted. 13. Consequently, the review petition is also disposed of. 14. Pending miscellaneous applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 07, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]