BACCHAN SINGH v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Review Petition No.55 of 2025

Decided on: 18^thJuly, 2025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bacchan Singh …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate

Genera, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for

respondent No.4.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

CMP(M) No.1076 of 2025

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned

counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of

respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the respondents have no

objection for allowing the application.

¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

H

ig h Co u

1

2

2 . Considering the pleadings and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. Delay in moving the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Review Petition No.55 of 2025

3. Petitioner seeks to review and recall Bacchan Singh Versus State of HP and Ors.². In terms of the said decision, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the writ petition was covered by the 'Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024' and therefore, in its present form, cannot proceed ahead. It was accordingly permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law, inter alia, assailing the aforesaid enactment.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid statement was an inadvertent error on the part of learned counsel. The subject matter of

3

seniority, pay fixation and Assured Career Progression Scheme etc. on merits of his case projected in the writ petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the facts now pleaded, it would be in the interest of justice to recall the decision rendered in Bacchan Singh².

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. Judgment dated 01.05.2025 rendered in CWP No.3502 of