STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) AG vs Dina Nath and others(Not Applicable) — RP/58/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O47R1.

CNR: HPHC010291562026

e-Filing Number

06-05-2026

Filing Number

RP/25404/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

RP/58/2026

Registration Date

16-Jun-2026

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O47R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) AG

  2. 2.The Principal Secretary (Personnel)(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Rajat Chauhan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dina Nath and others(Not Applicable)

  2. 2.Ramesh Kumar(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Uma Thakur(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Subhash Thakaur(Not Applicable)

  5. 5.Naveen Thakur(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. 16-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    Case Summary: RP/58/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed both the State's application to condone a 312-day delay in filing the review petition and the review petition itself. The court found no error apparent on the face of the prior judgment (Dina Nath & Ors. v. State, decided 01.04.2025, which had quashed the State's decision to fill JSS posts on secondment basis). The court held that the State was merely seeking reconsideration and rehearing under the guise of review, which is impermissible, and failed to provide cogent reasons for the substantial delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  2. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RP/58/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RP/58/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed both the State's application to condone a 312-day delay in filing the review petition and the review petition itself. The court found no error apparent on the face of the prior judgment (Dina Nath & Ors. v. State, decided 01.04.2025, which had quashed the State's decision to fill JSS posts on secondment basis). The court held that the State was merely seeking reconsideration and rehearing under the guise of review, which is impermissible, and failed to provide cogent reasons for the substantial delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case