State of H.P. and another vs. Roshan Lal and another CMP(M) No.1315 of 2026 [Item D-6] 19.08.2026 Present: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants/State. CMP(M) No.1315 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit, delay of 31 days in filing the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No. _____ of 2026. Be registered. Counsel for the State fairly submits that the only issue, as such, requiring reconsideration is that a finding had been recorded in paragraph 5 that the employee had deposited his share into the Consolidated Fund of the State and the employee's share into the General Provident Fund, by reference to pages 123 to 125. A similar finding, as such, has been recorded in paragraph 15. It is submitted that the said factum, as such, was not correct and that the deposit was only towards the terminal benefits pertaining to leave salary and gratuity paid, whereas the specific case, as such, in the Letters Patent Appeal also was that he had not deposited the employer's and the employee's share. It is also averred that there would be double benefit and financial loss to the State, and the said ground had been taken in the LPA on account of the fact that even the learned Single Judge had recorded the said fact. Counsel for the State also fairly submitted that there was no categorical denial in the OA regarding this aspect. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid, on taking steps within one week, issue notice to respondent No. 2, returnable for 8th October, 2026, on the limited aspect, since it is contended that the findings recorded, as such, entitled the respondent not to deposit the amount even if a demand is made by the State. List on 8th October, 2026. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 19th August, 2026 (Tarun Singh)