2026:HHC:14165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 700 of 2025 in RPST No. 20105 of 2025 Decided on : 27.04.2026 State of H.P. and others …Applicants/Review Petitioners Versus Ram Lal …Respondent The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional A.G., with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The applicants have filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as they have preferred the accompanying review petition, under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to review the judgment dated 22.07.2024, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 6585/2019, titled as ‘Ram Lal Vs State of H.P. & Others’. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:14165 2. Respondent Ram Lal, has filed CWPOA No. 6585 of 2019, before this Court, seeking the following relief:- “(i) That the impugned termination order dated 05.03.2005 i.e. Annexure A-12, whereby the service of the applicant was terminated needs to be quashed and set aside.” 3. In the said petition, notices were issued to the present applicants and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition was allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 22.07.2024. Relevant paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment, are reproduced as under:- “15. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, theis Court is of the view that the termination order dated 05.03.2005 (Annexure A-12) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, as prayed for, with costs, assessed at Rs. 10,000/- and the impugned order, dated 05.03.2005 (Annexure A-12), is ordered to be quashed and set aside.” 4. The said judgment has been sought to be reviewed by filing the accompanying Review Petition. Since, the review petition has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been filed for condonation of delay. As per the application, there is delay of 63 days, whereas, as per 3 2026:HHC:14165 the calculation made by the Registry, delay is of about 161 days. 4.1 Delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the judgment was passed by this Court on 22.07.2024, and the copy was received on 03.09.2024. Thereafter, judgment was sent to review applicant No. 3 for compliance, being appointing authority of Class-IV on 06.09.2024, but the same was returned by review applicant No. 3, with a request to file Review Petition. 4.2 Thereafter, the Department of Higher Education took the decision to file review petition on 16.10.2024. Thereafter, the review petition was drafted and presented before the office of learned A.G. on 17.11.2024. The draft was returned by learned A.G. with some observations on 02.12.2024. Those queries were answered and draft was re-submitted for vetting on 30.12.2024, which was approved on 31.01.2025. Same was received in the office of applicant No. 2, on the same day. The draft was then typed out on 31.01.2025 and after approval/signature of applicant No. 2, the same was sent to the office of learned A.G. on 21.02.2025. Thereafter, the review has been filed before this Court on 21.02.2025. 4 2026:HHC:14165 4.3 The application is duly supported by the affidavit of Dr. Amarjeet Sharma, Director of Higher Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4.4 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay. 5. When put to notice, application has been contested on the ground that certified copy was applied on 29.07.2024, and the same was attested by the Registry on 31.07.2024, but the same was collected on 21.08.2024. Highlighting the fact that the review petition with delay application was filed in the month of May, 2025, whereas main review petition was filed on 20.02.2025, according to the respondent/non-applicant this delay of about more than three months, has not been explained. On merits, the contents of the application have been denied. 6. Judgment in the petition, was passed in the presence of learned Additional Advocate General. Although, a liberal approach has to be adopted while deciding the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but, this does not mean that each and every ground put forth by the applicants for condonation of delay is liable to be accepted as a gospel truth, as, after the passing 5 2026:HHC:14165 of the judgment and after the expiry of statutory period for filing the appeal, a legal right has accrued in favour of the non-applicant, which cannot be taken so lightly. 7. The offices of all the applicants are situated in District Shimla and District Solan and as such, the delay cannot be said to be on account of the circumstances, which were not within the ordinary control of the applicants. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion before this Court to condone the delay. 8. Consequently, the application, under consideration, is dismissed. RPST No. 20105 of 2025 9. Vide separate order passed in CMP(M) No. 700 of 2025, the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition stands dismissed. As such, this petition is also dismissed, being barred by limitation. 10. Pending application(s), if any, are also ordered to be disposed of, accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge 27th April, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)