IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No._____ of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …….Petitioner Versus Vivek … 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 and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. For the Respondent: None. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP.M No.978 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition. 2. Having perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of lengthy administrative process and as such, delay in filing the appeal, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Review Petition No._____ of 2026 3. Be registered. 4. By way of instant review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of review- petitioner to review the order/judgment dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.11547 of 2024, titled as Vivek Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby this Court disposed of the petition with the following directions: “14. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Office Order dated 21.12.2023, thereby denying benefit of Pay Fixation in terms of Rules, is quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2021, in the same manner as was done in the case of other employees, whose names were recommended along with the petitioner and who were junior to him. Since benefit of higher pay already stands granted to persons junior to the petitioner, in terms of pay revision, petitioner shall also be given similar benefit w.e.f 01.10.2021, considering his date of regularization w.e.f 01.10.2021 instead of 01.04.2022 with all consequential benefits. Arrears, on account of pay fixation from the date, as indicated above, shall be paid expeditiously, preferably within four months, failing which petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date such amount fell due. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 5. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General representing the petitioner-State and gone through the record of the case. 6. The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged before Writ Court. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent 3 on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held: “11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....” (P.1377) 7. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise. 8. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 07, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)