State of H.P. Vs. Surender Nikhil Gupta CMP (M) No. 1479 of 2025 7.8.2026 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.Gautam Sood, Additional Advocate General, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. This application has been filed for condonation of 1 years 254 days delay in filing Review Petition for reviewing the judgment dated 16.9.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 7615 of 2020, titled as Dr. Surender Nikhil Gupta Vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that though an LPA No. 343 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Dr. Surender Nikhil Gupta was preferred by the State against the judgment dated 16.09.2023, passed in CWPOA No. 7615 of 2020, but during pendency of the said appeal, it was noticed that the facts in CWPOA No. 4000 of 2020, titled as Dr. Ajay Deol and others and CWPOA No. 7615 of 2020, titled as Surender Nikhil Gupta Vs. State of H.P. & others, which were decided by common judgment dated 16.09.2023, were entirely different as in present case, i.e. CWPOA No. 7615 of 2020, there was no continuity of the contract service since 16.9.1990 to 6.9.1999 because previous contract service of Surinder Nikhil Gupta was terminated on 16.9.1990, which was not contested by Surinder Nikhil Gupta at that time, but he represented only after his fresh appointment on regular basis on 6.9.1999. Whereas in Dr. Ajay Deol’s case, there was contract service followed by regular service without any break and interruption and, therefore, in both cases facts were not similar and thus the reasons for deciding CWPOA No. 4000 of 2020 were and are not applicable for deciding CWPOA No. 7615 of 2020. But this fact has not been noticed in judgment dated 16.09.2023, passed in CWPOA No. 7615 of 2020. 3. In aforesaid facts, proposed Review Petition along with present application has been preferred during pendency of LPA No. 343 of 2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.8.2026 LPA No. 343 of 2024 has been disposed of with liberty to the State to contest the Review Petition, but reserving right to assail the order in Review Petition, in case it is decided against the State, alongwith judgment dated 16.9.2023. 4. It has been submitted that under wrong legal advise, instead of filing Review Petition, LPA was preferred, which has been withdrawn with liberty granted by the Division Bench of this High Court. 5. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, delay in filing Review Petition is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed of. Review Petition No. …… of 2026 (RPST No. 29783 of 2026) Be registered. The respondent is duly represented by Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. Vide separate order of even date, Review Petition is allowed. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 7th August, 2026. (Keshav)