IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RP No. 4 of 2025 Date of Decision: 8.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Baljeet Singh Thakur and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP.M No.1684 of 2024 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants- petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying petition. 2. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, has filed power of attorney on behalf of the respondents. Though no reply to the application has been filed, but learned counsel for the non-applicants/respondents states that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua the 2 inordinate delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition, however, having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the lengthy administrative process and as such, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No. 4 of 2025 3. Present review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 20.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 8043 of 2023. The writ petitioners in aforesaid petition had sought a direction to the respondents/review petitioners to release arrears of pay/pension with effect from 1.1.2016 and to pay revised gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of revised pension. During arguments, learned counsel for the writ petitioners placed reliance upon order dated 31.5.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2108 of 2023, whereby Division Bench directed respondents to release similar benefits to the petitioners therein. This court, relying upon 3 the aforesaid order, passed similar order in writ petition filed by the respondents/writ petitioners herein. 4. Now, the review petitioners/State have come before this Court in review, on the ground that the facts of case of Bhagat Ram supra and those of writ petitioners herein are totally different and as such, directions contained in Bhagat Ram could not have been applied to the case of writ petitioners herein. 5. However, before going into the nitty-gritties of the arguments advanced by review petitioners, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General informed this Court that the order, which was the basis for passing order sought to be reviewed, itself has been recalled vide order dated 30.8.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 98 of 2024 and CWP No. 2108 of 2023 has been restored to its original number and position. 6. Though, the review petitioners have raised different grounds in the review petition, for recalling order dated 20.10.2023, but since the order dated 31.5.2023, which was the basis for passing order dated 20.10.2023, has itself been recalled, without going into the correctness of grounds raised by review petitioners, present review petition is allowed. Order dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8043 of 2023 is recalled. CWP No. 8043 of 2023 is restored to its original number and 4 position. The same be now listed before the Bench having Roster. Benefits, if any, released in favour of respondents/writ petitioners, pursuant to order dated 20.10.2023, shall abide by the decision in CWP No. 8043 of 2023. Review petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications. January 8, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge