IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RP No. 97 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.2.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ex. Hav. Achhar Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant-petitioner to review the order/judgment dated 30.7.2025, whereby CWP No. 13107 of 2024, came to be disposed of with the observation that afore petition shall abide by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 36359 of 2016 and the petitioner if engaged by virtue of the orders passed by this Court shall continue to get the 2 protection of the orders, till the adjudication of the matter by Hon’ble Apex Court or till he superannuates as per the policy, whichever is earlier. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. 3. The grounds raised are nothing, but reiteration of the grounds urged in revision petition. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held: “11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....” (P.1377) 3 4. In the case at hand grounds raised for reviewing of judgment are nothing but reiteration of grounds already urged in revision petition. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise. 5. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunha Yammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000)6 SCC 359, Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and Others, (2013)15 SCC 534, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. February 27, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Manjit) Judge