Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9533 of 2021 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Prakash Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kuldeep Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on contract basis in the office of Zila Gramodhyog Adhikari, Banda. In terms of the said appointment, the petitioner actually joined on 1.2.2003. It is alleged that the services of the petitioner were dismissed with effect from 5.7.2004. The petitioner claims to have challenged the said termination order passed against the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition No. 28789 of 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2004. The petitioner claims that against the said dismissal order, a Special Appeal was preferred being Special Appeal No. 1066 of 2004 in which initially interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner permitting the petitioner to continue to work. The said appeal was finally decided vide judgment dated 23.5.2012. While deciding the said appeal, it was observed that the petitioner has joined on 1.4.2003 and in terms of the policy decision taken on 22.2.2003, the petitioner was entitled to engagement as the date of joining was 1.2.2003.
The petitioner claims that the said observation in the judgment dated 23.5.2012 is erroneous as actually the petitioner has joined on 1.2.2003 and not on 1.4.2003 as recorded in the said judgment. He argues that persons similarly places as the petitioner had approached the Industrial Court and the awards were passed in their favour. Aggrieved against the said award, the respondent preferred a writ petition being Misc. Single No. 33191 of 2018 wherein an order was passed by this Court on 16.11.2018 and in pursuance of the said order, the persons similarly placed are continuing.
In sum and substance, petitioner argues that on account of inadvertent error that has occurred in the special appeal judgment dated 23.5.2012, the petitioner has been deprived of his rights as compared to the other similarly placed persons and has thus, approached this Court.
I am afraid that the findings recorded by the Special Appeal Court, even if erroneous on the face of it, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be rectified in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner may approach the Special Appeal Court by filing appropriate application for review, if so advised.
The writ petition stands dismissed in view of above findings.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 vinay