IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RP No.99 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Shri Ghanshyam …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP.M No. 1036 of 2025 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 review petition. 2. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed to the application, as such, this Court has no option but to decide the application on the basis of material adduced on record by the applicants/petitioners. 3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which are 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 circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant 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.99 of 2025 4. By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioners to review the judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by this Court in CWP No.4856 of 2023, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Ghanshyam. 5. In nutshell, grouse of the review petitioners is that case of the respondent is not covered with judgment dated 21.06.2021 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3388 of 2021, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Manohar Lal because Manohar Lal was not appointed on bill basis, whereas respondent was engaged on bill basis. However, having carefully perused judgment 2 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Manohar Lal (supra) clearly reveals that Manohar Lal was also engaged on bill basis. 6. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the non- applicant/respondent made available copy of award dated 20.12.2017 passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in Reference Petition No.234 of 2015, titled as Shri Manohar Lal Vs. The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which ultimately came to be laid challenge in CWP No.3388 of 2021, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Manohar Lal, to demonstrate that Manohar Lal was also claimed to be engaged on bill basis, but such prayer of him was negated by Labour Court as well as Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Having carefully perused award detailed hereinabove, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. Careful perusal of award passed by learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh reveals that respondent claimed before Tribunal that respondent had been working intermittently on bill basis subject to availability of funds and work as per notification dated 28.04.2009 and there had been no violation of provisions of Sections 9-A and 10 of the Act, however, such plea was negated by 3 Tribunal below on the basis pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the petitioners. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case. 8. The grounds raised are nothing, but reiteration of the grounds urged in writ proceedings. 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 4 clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....” (P.1377) 9. In the case at hand grounds raised for reviewing of judgment are nothing, but reiteration of grounds already taken before writ proceedings. 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. 10. 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, 4 (2013)15 SCC 534, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. November 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 5