Decided On : 07.04.202 vs State Of H.P. & Others ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2580 HP

                                      1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                           CMP(M) No. 658 of 2020




                                                             .
                           Review Petition No. : 24 of 2021





                           Decided on : 07.04.2021
     _____________________________________________________
     Mani Ram                     ......Applicant/Petitioner.





                Versus

     State of H.P. & others           ...Non-applicants/Respondents
    __________________________________________________________





    Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?

     For the Applicant/Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate.

     For the Non-applicants/          Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
     respondents                      General with Mr. Adarsh K.
                                      Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami,


                                      Additional Advocates General
                                      & Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur,
                                      Deputy Advocate General.




     _________________________________________________________
     L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice     (Oral)

This review petition has been filed by the

petitioner-applicant seeking review of order/judgment dated

08.07.2013, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2396 of 2013,

titled as Mani Ram versus State of H.P. & others, (for short

'the impugned judgment'), whereby the writ petition was

dismissed by observing that only minor penalty i.e.

withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, was

imposed upon the petitioner.

2. In the present petition, CMP (M) No. 658 of

2020, has been filed to condone the delay in filing the review

.

petition. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there

is delay of six years, eight months and six days, in filing the

present review petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

when the petitioner applied for certified copy of the impugned

judgment and gone through it, he was under the impression

that only a minor penalty was imposed upon him and he could

not point out the mistake made in the impugned

order/judgment due to the aforesaid wrong impression and it

came to his knowledge only when he found some error in the

fixation of his pension and other retiral dues. He further

submits that this Court has wrongly dismissed the writ

petition by observing that only minor penalty i.e. withholding

of one increment without cumulative effect, was imposed

upon the petitioner, whereas the major penalty i.e.

withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, was

imposed upon the petitioner. He prays that the delay in filing

the review petition may be condoned, impugned judgment

may be recalled and the writ petition may be decided on

merits.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned

Additional Advocate General submits that this review petition

.

may be dismissed as the delay in filing the present appeal has

not been properly explained. She further submits that the

petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court as it is

not known as to on which date, the petitioner had applied for

certified copy of the judgment and it is unbelievable that he

could not point out the mistake made in the impugned

order/judgment due to the inadvertence. She prays that the

application for condoning the delay in filing the review petition

and consequently, the review petition may be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties

and have gone through the entire record minutely.

6. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that

the petitioner was negligent in approaching this Court within

the stipulated period. It is also clear that this Court has not

decided the writ petition, on merits and while dismissing the

same, it has committed an error in using the words

"withholding of one increment without cumulative effect"

instead of words "withholding of one increment with

cumulative effect". In fact, "withholding of one increment

without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty and "withholding

of one increment with cumulative effect" is a major penalty.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, CMP(M) No.

658 of 2020 is allowed and the delay of six years, eight

.

months and six days, in filing the present review petition, is

condoned. Consequently, the review petition is allowed and

the impugned order/judgment dated 08.07.2013 is recalled.

Writ petition No. 2396 of 2013 is restored to its original

number and the same be listed for hearing. Review petition

and the application for condoning the delay in filing the review

petition are disposed of accordingly.

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.

     April 7, 2021                                 (Anoop Chitkara)
      (hemlata)                                         Judge.