C.M. Application No. 140793 of 2019.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Review petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Application for condonation of dealy is allowed.
Accordingly, delay is condoned.
Review Application No. 140794 of 2019 Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Review petitioner and Sri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
Sri Tewari has submitted that in the contempt proceedings he came to know that the State of U.P. has filed review application seeking review of the order dated 5.8.2019 passed in Service Single No. 19363 of 2019, therefore, he is appearing on behalf of writ petitioner in the review application.
At the outset it would be apt to reproduce the order for which the present review application has been filed as under :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in Service Single No. 13591 of 2019 and 13755 of 2019 and the judgment has been reserved.
Since this matter is not connected with the aforesaid writ petitions and the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Chief Engineer (Civil), Level-II with effect from 27.4.2018 (selection year 2017-18) and on the post of Chief Engineer (Civil), Level-I with effect from 8.3.2019 (selection year 2018-19), the date when juniors to the petitioner namely, Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Mustaq Ahmad, Naresh Chandra Upadhyaya, Anil Kumar, Divya Krishan Mishra, Jagdish Kumar Sharma and Jeevan Ram Yadav placed at Sl. No. 2110, 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2117 and 2118 of the seniority list have been promoted to the aforesaid posts and he has also prayed that the opposite parties be directed to consider the candidature of petitioner for promotion on the post of Engineer-in-Chief with effect from 1.7.2019, the date when Mr. Vinod Kumar junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage for the reason that the learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that on account of interim order being granted in Service Single No. 13591 of 2019 no promotion could be made by the department on the post of Chief Engineer Level-II and Chief Engineer Level-I. Since the writ petitions which are having the said issue have been heard finally and the judgment has been reserved, therefore, the opposite parties may consider the candidature of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law on the post of Chief Engineer Level-II and Chief Engineer Level-I w.e.f. when his juniors have been promoted and also on the post of Engineer-in-Chief w.e.f. when his juniors have been promoted inasmuch as this is a settled law that the employee shall be given all benefits at least w.e.f. the date when the said benefits have been given to the juniors to the petitioners. To be more precise while considering the candidature of the petitioner for his admissible dues there would be no impediment of the orders being passed by this Court in Service Single No. 13591 of 2019 and 13755 of 2019.
It is needless to say that while providing the benefit to the petitioner the authority concerned shall follow the provisions of law strictly.
In view of above terms, writ petition is disposed of."
The aforesaid order is an innocuous order whereby the writ petition was disposed of finally directing the authorities to pass appropriate orders following the provisions of law strictly. Therefore, it was up to the wisdom of competent authority to pass such order which follows the provisions of law strictly. This was a bare minimum expectation of the Court for the State Government to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Nothing more has been directed vide order dated 5.8.2019 which has been sought to be reviewed.
The present review petition does not contain any grounds as contemplated under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Limited vs. Governor of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 167, in the case of Lily Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224 that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise to re-hear the matter. Similar is a view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537 as well as Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095 and Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78.
Accordingly the review application is rejected.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]