2026:HHC:22509 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.24 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.06.2026 ___________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ……. Review Petitioners Versus Balak Ram … Respondent ___________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. For the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant review petition filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of review petitioners for review/recalling the judgment/order passed by this Court on 21.06.2025 in CWP No.9973 of 2025, titled as Balak Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Others. 2. Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate, has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent. 3. In nutshell, case of the review petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned Additional Advocate General, is that this Court while passing the judgment/order dated 21.06.2025 in CWP No.9973 of 2025, thereby directing the review petitioners (respondents therein) to consider 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:22509 2 and decide the case of the respondent (petitioner therein) in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, wrongly permitted the respondent (petitioner therein) to continue in service till the age of 60 years. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General states that though this Court while passing the aforesaid order was duly conscious of the fact that judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case (supra) has been laid challenge by way of SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but inadvertently review petitioners failed to bring it to the notice of this Court that judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case (supra) has been already stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in case titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Inder Pal, along with connected matters. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since on 24.03.2025, judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case (supra) stood stayed in SLP, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Inder Pal, along with connected matters, there was no occasion, if any, for this Court to direct review petitioners to permit the respondent to continue in service till the age of 60 years. 6. Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, learned counsel representing respondent, while stating that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment/order dated 21.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9973 of 2025, submitted that judgment passed by this Court in 2026:HHC:22509 3 Inder Pal’s case (supra) was stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.11306 of 2025 and at no point of time, judgment rendered by this Court in Satya Devi’s case (supra) came to be stayed. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by this Court while ordering continuation of respondent in service till the age of 60 years. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, especially copy of judgment dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.11306 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Inder Pal, along with connected matters, (Annexure P-2), this Court finds that review petitioners had also filed SLP in Satya Devi’s case (supra) before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was tagged with SLP filed by review petitioners in Inder Pal’s case (supra). SLPs filed in Inder Pal’s case as well as Satya Devi’s case along with other similar cases were listed before the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025, on which date, Hon’ble Apex Court, while issuing notice to respondents in all the matters, specifically ordered that operation of the impugned order(s) is/are stayed, meaning thereby, judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case (supra) was also stayed. If it is so, there was no occasion, if any, for this Court to direct the review petitioners to permit respondent- Balak Ram to remain in service, till he attains the age of 60 years, while passing judgment/order dated 21.06.2025 in CWP No.9973 of 2026:HHC:22509 4 2025, rather it ought to have simply disposed of the petition by ordering that same shall abide by the outcome of the SLP filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in Satya Devi’s case (supra). 8. Since judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, stood stayed before passing of judgment/order dated 21.06.2025 in CWP No.9973 of 2025, titled as Balak Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, prayer made on behalf of the review petitioners to review/modify the aforesaid order passed by this Court deserves to be allowed. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present review petition is allowed and judgment dated 21.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9973 of 2025 is modified/recalled to the extent that though afore petition filed by respondent-Balak Ram shall abide by the outcome of the SLP filed by the review petitioners in Satya Devi’s case (supra), but he shall not be permitted to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years. Since on account of passing of judgment/order dated 21.06.2025 in CWP No.9973 of 2025, respondent-Balak Ram has been continuing in service, even after his having attained the age of 58 years, review petitioner though may not permit the respondent to continue in service from the date of passing of instant order, but shall not proceed to initiate recovery proceedings, if any, qua the pay and other emoluments 2026:HHC:22509 5 received by him on the basis of his being in service pursuant to order dated 21.06.2025 passed in CWP No.9973 of 2025. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 16, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)