State of Hp and Others Vs Reena Dogra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RP No. 12 of 2026 Date of Decision: 13.3.2026

_____________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Reena Dogra

¶4

……...Petitioners Versus …....Respondent

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

For the Respondent: Nemo.

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

CMP.M No.238 of 2026

¶10

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made by the applicants-petitioners-State for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying review petition. 2. Having carefully perused explanation rendered in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has

¶11

2

¶12

occurred on account of lengthy administrative process and as such, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of.

¶13

Review Petition No. 12 of 2026

¶14

3. By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners/State to review the judgment dated 14.10.2025, whereby CWP No. 4979 of 2025 titled as Reena Dogra v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. , was disposed of with direction to the respondents /competent authority to issue duty certificate to Reena Dogra i.e. respondent herein, with effect from April 2024 to September 2024, enabling the Principal (respondent No.4 therein) to release her salary for the aforesaid period, within two weeks.

¶15

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case.

¶16

5. The grounds raised are nothing, but reiteration of the grounds urged in revision petition. 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 judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The

¶17

3

¶18

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.

¶19

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 1964 SC 1372 , held:

¶20

“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 made out.....” (P.1377)

¶21

6. In the case at hand grounds raised for reviewing of judgment

¶22

are nothing but reiteration of grounds already urged in revision petition. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise.

¶23

7. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunha Yammed and

¶24

Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000)6 SCC 359, Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, Kamlesh Verma

¶25

4

¶26

vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu

¶27

Kathuria and Others, (2013)15 SCC 534 , the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶28

March 13, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Manjit) Judge

State of Hp and Others v. Reena Dogra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Reena Dogra

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

Mani Ram Sharma Vs Karam Dass

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Amarjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Devender Dutt and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Dharmender Kumar Vs State of Hp