2025:HHC:6130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RP No. 24 of 2024 Decided on : 13.03.2025 Smt. Reena Devi …Petitioner Versus Raj Kumari and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for Proforma respondents No.1 & 2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this Review Petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That the impugned order (Annexure P-2) which imposes compensation upon the petitioner without her being heard may kindly be reviewed and set aside. 2. That appropriate orders/directions may 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6130 kindly be issued in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, or in alternate the petitioner be allowed to file her response against the alleged act of not allowing the respondent to join as Water Carrier.” 2. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify as to why the review petitioner did not allow the petitioner (respondent herein) to join the duty. He submitted that there was a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha to this effect and orders of the Authorities were not within the knowledge of the Review Petition. 3. All these reasons, cumulatively point out to the fact that the review petitioner deliberately did not allow the respondent herein to join the duty. The contention of the review petitioner that she was on maternity leave, has been sympathetically considered by this Court. Even in terms of the averments made in the Review Petition she was on maternity leave only from 23.10.2006 to 23.11.2006. Nothing prevented her to implement the directions which were issued to her by 3 2025:HHC:6130 respondent No.2 in the writ petition, after she had rejoined her duty. She further admits that she did not allow the respondent to join due to the Gram Sabha Resolution. 4. Therefore, as this Court is not satisfied that there is any error apparent on the face of the record, this Review Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 13, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)