IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.11 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 __________________________________________________________ Prem Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another … Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur & Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of present Review Petition filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rules 1 & 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioner to review the judgment dated 05.09.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.2937 of 2025, titled as Prem Thakur versus State of H.P. and Another, whereby this Court disposed of the petition with the following observations: “10. Since the petitioner has been shown to be promoted/placed as Junior Assistant with effect from 31.12.1993, he has been rightly granted first benefit under old ACPS in 2001, whereafter, he was placed in next higher scale and thereafter, under old ACPS, his second upgradation was due in December 2009, but before that old ACPS was abolished and after 27.8.2009, new ACPS was introduced, for which the petitioner has given option. As per said scheme, all the benefits were to be given from 27.8.2009. As per new ACPS, benefit received 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 under old ACPS were to be merged with new one. Petitioner was granted two benefits under new ACPS in 2009. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that by arbitrarily granting step up of Rs.50/- at the time of fixation of his pay with effect from 1.1.2006, his benefit under ACPS has been snatched is wrong. Otherwise also, under new ACPS, maximum three upgradations are allowed and petitioner has received them. 11. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.” 2. I have heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. 3. 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 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 3 made out.....” (P.1377) 4. 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. 5. 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. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 17, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)