Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh An Ors vs Mukesh Kumari And Ors on 5 October, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
R.P. No. 120 of 2023.
.
Decided on: 05.10.2023.
State of Himachal Pradesh an Ors. ....Petitioners.
Versus
Mukesh Kumari and Ors. ...Respondents.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
rt
For the petitioners : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Parmar and Ms.
Rashmi Parmar, Advocates, for
respondents No. 1 to 28.
: Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent No. 29.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
CMP(M) No. 1834 of 2019
Delay condoned. Application stands disposed of.
Review Petition No. 120 of 2023 Heard.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:34:14 :::CIS 2By way of instant petition, petitioners have sought review of judgment dated 26.05.2015, passed .
in CWP No. 9033 of 2014.
2. The judgment dated 26.05.2015, which is sought to be reviewed reads as under:-
"It is not in dispute that the present lis is of covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 12225 of 2008, decided on 14.7.2010 read with judgment rendered by the Coordinate rt Bench of this Court in CWP No. 60 of 2012, decided on 19.3.2015.
2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to release the revised pay scale to the petitioners @ 950-1800 to 3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with interest @ 9% per annum, within a period of eight weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs."
3. The above judgment was assailed by the petitioners herein by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2017, which was also dismissed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 26.07.2017 in following terms:-
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:34:14 :::CIS 3"We find the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to be in the nature of a 'consent order', as such, we do not see any reason to interfere with .
the same, save and except, liberty is reserved to the State to file a review, if so required.
2. In view of above, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of."
of
4. The remedy of review has been availed by the petitioners on the strength of liberty reserved in rt their favour by order dated 26.07.2017, passed in LPA No. 15 of 2017. Nonetheless, the petitioners have to make out a case for review of an order or judgment strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In order to succeed in review the petitioners have to show some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, the grounds as raised in the petition for seeking review directly or indirectly relate to the merits of the case. It is trite that this Court while exercising review jurisdiction will not enter into the merits of the claim/counter claim of the parties. The Court will definitely not sit as a Court of ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:34:14 :::CIS 4 appeal to re-assess and re-appreciate the entire material. No error apparent on the face of record has .
been pointed out.
5. Viewed from another angle, the order sought to be reviewed reveals that no objection was raised by the petitioners herein before the Court of which passed the order as are sought to be raised now before this Court. It is not a case of the rt petitioners that while delivering order dated 26.05.2015, Hon'ble Court had committed any factual error. Evidently, no such objection was raised at that stage.
6. In this view of the matter also, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for review. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed and is disposed of.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
5th October, 2023 Judge
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:34:14 :::CIS