IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1184 of 2025 & Review Petition No. 93 of 2025 Date of decision: 10.10.2025. State of H.P. & another ...Petitioners. Versus Priyanka Nagu ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral): The present review petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMP(M) No. 1686 of 2024. 2. A review petition was also filed earlier before the learned Single Judge, against the order dated 10.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6446 of 2023, which was dismissed on 15.6.2024 as under:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Heard. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.” 3. The present review petition has now been filed for recalling the order dated 16.12.2024, which was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the own undertaking of the applicants as such. 4. We have also gone through the grounds of LPA, which goes to show that the order of review dated 15.6.2024, mentioned in para-4 of the present review petition was never the subject matter of challenge before the Coordinate Bench. 5. The following order was passed on 13.12.2024 in CMP(M) No. 1686 of 2024:- “The appellants-State to justify the maintainability of this appeal in view of the settled law and show cause why exemplary costs be not imposed.” 6. Thus, faced with the issue of exemplary costs, the said application was not pressed and now the State cannot turn around to argue the case on merits, as such, the present review petition does not comply to the provisions of review. 7. Learned State counsel now has sought to argue in a time barred review petition that on account of coming into force the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of -3- Government Employee Act, 2024, notified on 19.2.2025, the matter requires reconsideration. We are of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of record in view of the fact that the application for condonation of delay was not pressed by the State on its own and even the notice had not been issued prior to the dismissal of the aforesaid application. 8. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record which requires interference. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, but the review petition is dismissed. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th October, 2025 (Jai)