1 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 22/2026. Decided on: 25.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- State and another …..Petitioners Versus Dr. Ashish Sharma .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Personnel) as also Principal Secretary (Animal Husbandry), Himachal Pradesh seeks review of Ashish Sharma versus State of H.P and another2. The said writ petition was decided on the strength of office instructions dated 25.10.2024 issued by Director, Animal Husbandry, H.P.; alongwith office instructions dated 25.10.2024 an office letter issued by Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Government of H.P. on 18.10.2024 had also been appended. The writ petition was decided as under:- This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No.9886/2024, decided on 21.05.2025. 2 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) “(A) That the respondents may be directed to consider the contractual service put in the by the petitioner as Veterinary Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 16.03.2006 to 15.09.2012 on contract basis, towards total length of service put in by the petitioner as Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Officer for the purposes of grant of four tier pay scales in accordance with notifications placed on record as Annexure P-7, P-8 and P-9. (B) That after considering the contractual service of petitioner for grant of four tier pay scale as aforesaid, the respondents may be directed to fix the pay of petitioner in terms of the applicable notifications placed on record. (C) That after grant of four tier pay scale to the petitioner and consequent fixation of pay, the respondents may be directed to grant him all the arrears of his pay along with interest 9% per annum.” 2. Respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition, however, on 02.05.2025 office instructions dated 25.10.2024 from the Director Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh were placed on record. As per these office instructions, the Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, had granted benefit of four tier scale to the petitioner on notional basis from the date of his appointment on contract basis. Further consequential actions, including fixation of pay in the matter were required to be carried out at the end of the Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Copy of the office order dated 18.10.2024 issued by the Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has also been appended alongwith the office instructions. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that office instructions dated 25.10.2024 alongwith office letter dated 18.10.2024 have redressed the grievance of the petitioner, therefore, direction be issued to respondent No.1 to issue necessary and consequential orders based thereupon, including the pay fixation order. 4. Keeping in view the instructions memo dated 25.10.2024 from the Director Animal Husbandry, 3 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) Himachal Pradesh and also office letter dated 18.10.2024 from the Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to do the needful in terms of aforesaid instructions/letter including re-fixing the pay of the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for redressal of his surviving grievances, in case necessity so arises in future. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed.” 2. The State Personnel Department and Animal Husbandry Department now seek review of above decision on the ground that the Director, Animal Husbandry was not the respondent in the writ petition and not competent to have issued office instructions dated 25.10.2024 at his own level without consulting the petitioner departments. Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that reply was not called for in the main writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition had been repeatedly listed but respondent did not file reply. Thereafter on the basis of their own instructions placed on record, the writ petition was disposed of. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. During hearing of the case, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent placed on record office instructions dated 25.10.2024 issued by the Director, Animal 4 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) Husbandry, H.P. as also the office letter dated 18.10.2024 from Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Principal Secretary (Personnel), Govt. of H.P. lt is based upon these two documents that Ashish Sharma2 was disposed of taking note of submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 4(i). In view of nature of contention raised in this petition by the review petitioners, it would be appropriate to first extract hereinafter office letter dated 18.10.2024 that was addressed by the Secretary (Animal Husbandry), Government of H .P. to the Principal Secretary (Personnel), copy endorsed to Director, Animal Husbandry:- “Subject: Representations of Dr. Charanji Lal, HPAS-2011, Dr. Ashish Sharma, HPAS- 2012, Dr. Amit Guleria, HPAS-2012 and Dr. (Maj. Retd.) Avaninder Kumar, HPAS- 2014 regarding benefits of 4-Tier Pay Scale as per judgment dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.1599/2020 alongwith other connected matters. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letters No. Per(A-IV)-B(3)-7/2011 dated 02.07.2024 and Per-IV- B003-14/2023 dated 05.07.2024, on the subject cited above and to say that in compliance to judgment dated 02.03.2023 of Hon’ble High Court, passed in CWP No.1599/2020- Pankaj Lakhanpal Vs State of H.P. and other connected matters, the benefits of fourtier pay scale to the Veterinarians of Animal Husbandry Deptt. were granted on notional basis from the date of appointment on contract basis and on actual basis from the date of appointment on regular basis, vide letters Nos. AHY-B(15)-30/15-P-IV 5 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) dated 08.12.2023 & AHY-B(7)-1/2023 dated 24.07.2024 (copies enclosed). Keeping in view the above facts, the representations of Dr. Charanji Lal, Dr. Ashish Sharma, Dr.Amit Guleria and Dr. Avaninder Kumar have been considered and it has been decided to grant same benefits of four tier pay scale on notional basis from the date of appointment on contract basis for the service tendered in Animal Husbandry Deptt. on contract basis in favour of above mentioned HPAS Officers, whose service detail in Animal Husbandry Deptt. is as under:- S. No. Name of Vety. Officer Date of appointm ent on contract basis Service rendere d in the Deptt. Date of leaving the Deptt. 1 Dr. Charanji Lal (HPAS-2011) 11.04.200 5 06 year 06 months 11.10.2 011 2 Dr. Ashish Sharma (HPAS- 2012) 16.03.200 6 06 year 06 months 15.09.2 012 3 Dr. Amit Guleria (HPAS-2012) 07.09.200 7 05 year 08 days 15.09.2 012 4 Dr. Avaninder (HPAS-2014) 27.11.201 3 11 months 06 days 27.10.2 014 You, are therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly.” 4(ii). The above office letter as communicated to the Director, Animal Husbandry, H.P. led the latter to furnish following office instructions to the office of learned Advocate General of H.P. vide office letter dated 25.10.2024 by appending therein letter dated 18.10.2024:- 6 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) “Subject: CWP No.9886/2024 titled as –Dr.Ashish Sharma Vs. State of H.P. Sir, Kindly refer to your office letter No.CWP 9886/2024-61670, dated 01/10/2024, the copy of which is addressed to the Principal Secretary (Personnel) and Principal Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on the subject cited above. In this connection, it is submitted that vide letter No.AHY-B(150-24/2022, dated 18/10/2024 (copy enclosed), the respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary (A.H.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has granted the benefit of four tier pay scale on notional basis from the date of appointment on contract basis for the service rendered by the petitioner i.e. Dr. Ashish Sharma in the Animal Husbandry Department on contract basis as granted to the petitioners in CWP No.1599/2020- Pankaj Lakhanpal & others Vs. State of H.P & others and other connected matters The further action in the matter regarding fixation of the pay of the petitioner is to be taken by the Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as such the relief claimed by the petitioner has been granted to him. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be appraised accordingly, please.” 4(iii). Alongwith review petition, the petitioner has placed on record office letter dated 23.11.2024 at Annexure R-7 from Secretary, Animal Husbandry to the Secretary (Personnel) to the Govt. of H.P. conveying approval of the government for grant of 04 tier pay scale to several persons including the present petitioner, copy of this office letter had also been endorsed to the Director, Animal Husbandry. 4(iv). In view of the office instructions placed on record by the respondent in Ashish Sharma2, the decision rendered in the said case on 21.05.2025 cannot be set to 7 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) be falling within any of the para-meters eliciting review jurisdiction. The grounds set out by the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of review powers. The principles for reviewing a decision were summed up in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus State Tax Officer (1) and another3 as under:- “16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” Further, in Malleeswari Versus K. Suguna and another4, Hon’ble Apex Court held that review 3(2024) 2SCC 362 42025 SCC Online SC 1927 8 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Power of review is different from the appellate power. Following limitations were laid down for maintaining the finality of judicial decisions:- “15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC5. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court6. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise7. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power8. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered9. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors10.” It was further held that though through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the Court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush 5(1995)1 SCC 170 6(1979) 4 SCC 389 7(1997) 8 SCC 715 8(2000) 6 SCC 224 9(2009) 14 SCC 663 10AIR (1963) SC 1909 9 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) enables the Court to correct apparent errors instead of higher court correcting such errors. At both the stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted. Distinction between power of review and appellate power as also the power & scope of review jurisdiction was summed up as under:- “17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record11. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision12. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record13. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories14.” Applying the above principles to the facts of the instant case, in view of the fact that issuance of instructions on the basis of which Ashish Sharma2 was decided, is matter of record, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on record in the judgment that requires to be reviewed. 11(1955) 1 SCR 1104 12AIR (1954) SC 440 13AIR (1960) SC 137 141922 SCC Online PC11; AIR (1954) SC 526 10 ( 2026:HHC:19438 ) For the foregoing reason, no case to review the judgment is made out. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 25, 2026 Judge yogesh