K.S.Sunil Kumar vs Chairman & Secretary

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5950 Ker
Judgement Date : 31 May, 2022

Kerala High Court
K.S.Sunil Kumar vs Chairman & Secretary on 31 May, 2022
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

                                       &

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

     TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944

                            RP NO. 440 OF 2022

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2017 IN OP (CAT) 227/2017

                          OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN THE OP(CAT):

               K.S.SUNIL KUMAR
               AGED 59 YEARS, S/O K.K. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT T.C.
               7/739920, SINDHOORAM, KOURA-23, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL
               COLLEGE PO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

               BY ADV DR.SILPA AZIZ


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(CAT):

    1          THE CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, INDIAN
               SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, ANTHARIKSH BHAWAN, NEW
               BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 231.

    2          THE DIRECTOR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THUMBA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 022. CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY



                SRI.JAISHANKAR V NAIR, CGC


        THIS    REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                              :2:
R.P.No440 of 2022
in
OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017




                                        ORDER

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Review Petition is preferred by the petitioner in OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017, who took voluntary retirement from the 2 nd respondent organisation under the Department of Space, Government of India. It would appear that after his retirement from the organisation, he had raised a claim for certain service benefits based on a claim for antedated promotion as Engineer SE with effect from 01.07.1997 as against 01.07.2003, the date on which he was actually granted promotion as Engineer SE. Finding that the claim for antedated promotion and consequential benefits had come belatedly, the O.A filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed, and thereafter, the OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. It would appear that, thereafter, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through an order dated 10.01.2018 in SLP(C).No.36198 of 2017, which was dismissed with the following finding:-

"We do not find any reason to entertain this Special :3: R.P.No440 of 2022 in OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017 Leave Petition, which is, accordingly dismissed.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of."

2. It is necessary to note that the order of the Supreme Court in the SLP is dated 10.01.2018, and the petitioner has now chosen to file a Review Petition in 2022 after filing an affidavit in support of an application to condone the delay in approaching this Court while filing the Review Petition.

3. We have heard Dr.Silpa Aziz the learned counsel for the review petitioner as also Sri.Jaishankar V. Nair the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that inasmuch as the SLP preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017 was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the reasons stated above, a fresh Review Petition cannot be entertained by this Court more so in the absence of any leave granted to file such Review Petition by the Supreme Court. It is also relevant to note that the Review Petition itself has been filed along with a delay condonation application that seeks to :4: R.P.No440 of 2022 in OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017 condone a delay of 945 days. We might, in this connection, also point out that we have taken a similar view in an order dated 05.08.2021 in R.P.No.503 of 2021, wherein we have considered the scope and ambit of orders such as the one passed by the Supreme Court in the SLP as noted above, and the effect it has to preclude the entertainment of subsequent Review Petitions. We find ourselves unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the Review petitioner, and hence the Review Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE mns :5: R.P.No440 of 2022 in OP(CAT).No.227 of 2017 APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ORDER DATED 10.01.2018 ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT IN REFERENCE TO OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.D1-45545 OF 2021 DATED 24.09.2022 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF PETITION PUT IN BY SRI.SUNILKUMAR S OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RECEIVED ON 29.09.2021 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE