IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.113 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Union of India & others …….Petitioners Versus Ramesh Chand … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India. For the Respondent: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of present Review Petition filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioners to review/recall the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 12555 of 2025, titled Dr. Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India and others inasmuch as this Court proceeded to record that respondent shall continue to serve against the said post, where respondent is presently serving on the same terms and conditions. It is averred in the review petition that though this Court, having taken note of the fact that the respondent stood terminated and in his place, one Dr. Surbhi was 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 appointed, had refused to grant relief, as is evident from order dated 01.08.2025, but inadvertently, while passing final order proceeded to record that respondent shall continue to serve against the said post, where respondent is presently serving on the same terms and conditions. 2. Learned counsel representing the parties fairly state that on the date of passing of the judgment dated 13.10.2025, which is sought to be reviewed, respondent was not working against the post in question. If it is so, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, that there is an error apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed. 3. Consequently, in view of above, the present petition is allowed and judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 12555 of 2025, is reviewed/recalled to the extent that phrase “and till the adjudication thereof, the petitioner shall continue to serve against the said post, where petitioner is presently serving on the same terms and conditions” shall stand omitted. Respondent is at liberty to lay challenge to the appointment of Doctor named hereinabove, against the post earlier occupied by him. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 09,2025 (shankar)