2026:HHC:30523 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Review Petition No.21 of 2026 Decided on: 22.07.2026. ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. & Another ...Petitioners Versus Paras Ram ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Respondent ex parte, vide order dated 30.06.2026. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge [Oral] The present review petition has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed in LPA No.139 of 2025, titled State of H.P. & Another v. Paras Ram, on the ground that LPA was decided on the basis of judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed in CWP No.2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi v. State of H.P. & Others, whereas, the operation and execution of the judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case, had been stayed by the Apex Court. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:30523 - 2 - 2. It has further been submitted that Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment in Satya Devi’s case has been dismissed but with the observation that the said judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. 3. As the present matter was decided independently, though on the basis of Satya Devi’s case, therefore, judgment passed in present case, review whereof has been sought, should have been assailed by the State by filing an independent Special Leave Petition. In absence thereof, no ground warranting review of the judgment dated 02.04.2025 is made out, particularly, when the Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment in Satya Devi’s case also stands dismissed. 4. It is also apt to record that as per material available on record respondent-Paras Ram has also served up to the age of 60 years and superannuated on 30.04.2026 and therefore, he is entitled for the period for which he has actually served and thus also review of the judgment is not warranted. 5. Accordingly, we find no error apparent on the 2026:HHC:30523 - 3 - face of the record warranting interference. 6. In view of the aforesaid observation, review petition is dismissed with direction to the State to release all admissible benefits to the respondent- Paras Ram, if not already released, within a period of two months from today. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 22, 2026 [Shivender]