IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 138 of 2025 Date of decision : 7.7.2025. State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners. Versus Rajni Devi ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Pratush Sharma, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): CMP(M) No. 138 of 2025 1. By way of this application, a prayer has been made to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the review petition. 2. It is averred that after passing of the judgment dated 22.4.2024, the matter was considered at various levels by the respondent department and when the information was sought from the field office, it transpired that the petitioner had been paid emoluments by the School Management Committee from its own fund and not by the PTA of the school. It is the case of the applicants that thereafter, an advise was rendered to file 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- review petition and hence the delay in filing the petition is neither intentional nor willful. 4. The non-applicant has filed the reply. The contents of the reply reveal that the contest is more on the merits of the case. 5. Since the contents of the application are duly supported by an affidavit and there is nothing contrary on record to suggest the incorrectness of such contents, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause which prevented the applicants from filing the review petition in time. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 6. Review Petition No. /2025 Be registered. 7. The contents of review petition reveal that the review is being sought only on the ground that an error has crept in the order passed by this Court on 19.4.2024 in CWP No. 3738 of 2022, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner has throughout being paid emoluments from PTA basis. Evidently, the order dated 19.4.2024 was passed on the basis of instructions placed on record dated 18.4.2024. -3- 8. According to the review petitioners, in the instructions dated 18.4.2024, it was mentioned that the petitioner was being paid by the School Management Committee from its own funds. 9. Having perused the original record of CWP No. 3738 of 2022, it becomes evident that though in the letter dated 16.4.2024 addressed by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary, School, Pahra, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, it was mentioned that the petitioner had been engaged under local PTA/SMC but in later part of the communication, it was mentioned that she was paid from April, 2020 to January, 2022 from SMC. That being so, there is an error in recording the facts which had been taken into consideration while passing the final judgment. Thus, the judgment dated 22.4.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3738 of 2022 is ordered to be reviewed. CWP No. 3738 of 2022 be listed for hearing on 15.7.2025. 10. Review petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 7th July, 2025 (kck)