Dr. Shekhar Sharma V. State of Himachal Pradesh CWPOA No.6997 of 2020 10.09.2025 Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj & Ms. Aastha Kohli, Advocates, for the non- applicant/petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicants/respondents-State. CMP(T) No.48 of 2025 By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of applicants/respondents for correction of clerical error in para 12 of the judgment dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.6997 of 2020 inasmuch as this Court directed the respondents to convert the services of the petitioner from RKS to Government contract in terms of policy decision dated 28.03.2016 taken by the Government vide Annexure A-21. It has been averred in the application that clerical error exists in para 11 and 12 of the judgment detailed herein above, wherein the words “RKS to Government contract” have been mentioned instead of “RKS/Society Contract”. It has been further averred that this Court had dropped the contempt proceedings against respondent No.1-Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh; respondent No.2-Dr. Bhanu Awasthi, Principal and respondent No.3-Mohan Singh Choudhary, Medical Superintendent, vide order dated 07.08.2023, taking note of the fact that petitioner was placed on regular pay scale by the respondents, vide order dated 28.07.2023, therefore, he is deemed to have been brought on RKS/Society Contract in terms of Policy decision dated 28.03.2016. Afore prayer made on behalf of the applicants/respondents has been seriously refuted by the non- applicant/petitioner, who has stated that very prayer of the applicants/respondents was to bring him on the Government Contract in terms of Policy decision taken by the Government and this Court, having taken note of the Policy, purposely and intentionally directed the respondents to convert the services of the petitioner from “RKS to Government contract” in terms of Policy decision dated 28.03.2016 taken by the Government. Mr. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that in terms of Policy decision dated 28.03.2016, Government of Himachal Pradesh ordered that employees recruited under various Societies in the Health Department as per prescribed procedure laid down in the R&P Rules for the concerned post will be eligible for conversion of RKS/Society contract after three years and they will be given regular pay scale after completion of eight years as on 31st March of the preceding year subject to the condition that they will continue to work in the same society, but at no point of time, decision, if any, was ever taken by the Government to convert a person working in RKS to Government contract, as such, Clerical error kept in judgment, as detailed hereinabove, needs to be rectified. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis mandate contained in the judgment dated 21.12.2020, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that no clerical error has been crept in para 11 and 12 as has been claimed by the respondents, rather having taken note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court had purposely and intentionally directed the respondents to convert the services of the petitioner from “RKS to Government Contract” in terms of Policy decision dated 28.03.2016. Ground raised by the applicants/respondents that while passing judgment dated 21.12.2022, this Court has failed to take note of the Policy decision dated 28.03.2016 though being erroneous, deserves outright rejection, but even if it is presumed that same has not been interpreted properly by this Court, application at hand was not appropriate remedy, rather in that situation, applicants/respondents ought to have filed review or laid challenge to the judgment in question in the appropriate proceedings. At this juncture, it is apt to take note of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 328, wherein the Exercise of Scope and limitations of the power under Section 152 have been explained. It is apparent from the afore judgment that corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court, while passing the judgment, decree or order. Most importantly, in afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that omission sought to be corrected, which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition filed by the non-applicant/petitioner, especially relief clause as well as judgment passed by this Court, this Court finds that non-applicant/petitioner had specifically prayed for conversion of his service from “RKS to Government contract”. This Court, having taken note of material adduced on record by the respective parties, directed the respondents to convert the services of the petitioner from “RKS to Government contract”, as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, that while issuing directions as contained in the para 12 of the judgment some clerical error has crept. In view of the above, present application is dismissed being devoid of merits. September 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge