State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs Sat Pal

Review petitioners/State seek review/recall of Sat Pal Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.² , which was disposed of on 09.05.2025. Since the review is barred by limitation, an application has also been moved for condoning the delay of 181 days.

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶14

3. In Sat Pal² , the present respondent was the writ petitioner. He had prayed for the benefit of approved military service towards fixation of his pay in civil employment from the initial date of

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶16

2 CWP No. 2150/2023 decided on 09.05.2025

¶17

2

¶18

( 2026:HHC:22061 )

¶19

joining the same. The State had rejected the case of the writ petitioner for the grant of the benefit of approved military service.

¶20

During hearing of Sat Pal² , learned counsel for the writ petitioner had submitted that writ petitioner’s case for the relief claimed by him was squarely covered by the decision rendered in Babu Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others³ , whereafter following order was passed in the writ petition on 30.04.2025: -

¶21

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is covered in terms of decision rendered in CWP No. 6443/2021 (Babu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors a/w connected matters) decided on 09.05.2022.

¶22

Respondents though have not filed their reply despite the fact that the petition has been admitted on 31.05.2023, however, at the request of learned Deputy Advocate General, the matter is adjourned to next week to enable her to have instructions/file reply in the matter.

¶23

As prayed for, list next week.”

¶24

In view of above order, learned Additional Advocate

¶25

General placed on record office instructions dated 08.05.2025 from the Director, Health Services, H.P. acknowledging that petitioner’s case was covered by Babu Ram³ . Noticing this stand of the State, the writ petition was disposed of as under: -

¶26

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner for the relief claimed by him is squarely covered

¶27

3 CWP No.6443 of 2021, decided along with connected matters on 09.05.2022

¶28

3

¶29

( 2026:HHC:22061 )

¶30

by the decision rendered in Babu Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others³ . In view of above submission, following order was passed in the matter on 30.04.2025:-

¶31

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is covered in terms of decision rendered in CWP No. 6443/2021 (Babu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors a/w connected matters) decided on 09.05.2022.

¶32

Respondents though have not filed their reply despite the fact that the petition has been admitted on 31.05.2023, however, at the request of learned Deputy Advocate General, the matter is adjourned to next week to enable her to have instructions/file reply in the matter.

¶33

As prayed for, list next week.”

¶34

Pursuant to above order, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 08.05.2025 from the Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. Relevant portion of which reads as under:-

¶35

“It is further submitted that in terms of the directions of the Government as conveyed vide letter dated 06-05-2025, the matter has further been taken up with the Department of Education for seeking factual status of Babu Ram's case by the Department vide letter dated 08-05-2025, copy enclosed as FLAGB. in reference to the earlier correspondence made by the Secretary (Health) and Secretary (Education) to the said Department. However, since the relief claimed by the present Petitioner is same and similar to the relief as per the basis judgment in Babu Ram's case, the outcome of Babu Ram's case has also to be applied in the case of the present petitioner, without any discrimination.”

¶36

The respondents have admitted that petitioner’s case is similar and covered by the decision in Babu Ram1. That the relief given to Babu Ram has to be given to petitioner as well without any discrimination.

¶37

4. In view of fair stand taken by the respondents, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to confer the benefit of approved military service to the petitioner towards fixation of his pay from the date of his joining the civil

¶38

4

¶39

( 2026:HHC:22061 )

¶40

employment. This exercise along with consequential follow-up action be completed within a period of six weeks from today.”

¶41

4. Sat Pal² was disposed of on 09.05.2025 in view of the specific stand taken by the State that writ petitioner's (present respondent's) case was the same & similar to that of Babu Ram³ and, therefore, the outcome of Babu Ram's³ case was required to be applied to the case of the present respondent without any discrimination. Having imparted specific instructions on the basis of which Sat Pal² was disposed of, the State cannot now seek review of the judgment rendered therein. The said petition was admitted on 31.05.2023, but the State did not even care to file its reply. It was only pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Sat Pal² that instructions were placed on record by the Director, Health Services, acknowledging that writ petitioner's (present respondent) case was same & similar to that of Babu Ram³ and, accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶42

It is further to be noticed that the ground taken by the writ respondents in seeking review is that the writ petitioner was appointed on 29.01.2018 on contract basis, whereas the notification amending Rule 5 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the H.P. State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, was issued on 29.01.2018. Apart from review petitioner’s pleaded fact that the petitioner was appointed

¶43

5

¶44

( 2026:HHC:22061 )

¶45

the same day the notification was issued, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment order for petitioner's contractual employment had actually been issued on 20.01.2018 (i.e. prior to the issuance of notification dated 29.01.2018) but the petitioner had joined on 29.01.2018. Be that as it may, since the judgment was based upon the specific instructions imparted by the respondents themselves, the parameters for review are not satisfied in the instant case. The review petitioner-State has not even been able to justify the delay in instituting the review petition.

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, the application as well as the review petition are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶47

15^th June, 2026(rohit)

¶48

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Sat Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Sat Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Kashyap Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amar Singh and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Theon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Amar Singh Bhatia and Another

The Engineer in CHief Hppwd Nirman Bhawan Shimla Hp Vs Om Prakash

Shashank Minhas Vs Priyanka Basu Ingty and Another