Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Verma & Another vs Union Of India & Others on 1 June, 2012
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Order reserved
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14868 of 2000
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Verma & Another
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Sinha
Respondent Counsel :- Govind Saran
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 213594 of 2006
The aforementioned Review Application has been fled on behalf of the petitioners/applicants, inter-alia, praying for review of the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2006 passed in the present Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14868 of 2000 filed by the petitioners, and for recall of the said Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2006.
An Affidavit has been filed in support of the aforementioned Review Application.
A Supplementary Affidavit has also been filed in support of the aforementioned Review Application.
It appears that the petitioners/applicants herein were engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collectors during the period from January 1987 to February 1987. On termination of engagement of the petitioners/applicants, they filed Original Application No. 471 of 1990 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal").
The Central Administrative Tribunal by its Judgment and Order dated 10.7.1991 directed for reinstatement of the petitioners/applicants on the posts held by them and for processing their cases for regularization.
The respondents herein filed Appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 9148 of 1994. During the pendency of the Appeal before the Supreme Court, the respondents by the Order dated 11.3.1992 reengaged the petitioners/applicants under the said Judgment and Order dated 10.7.1991 passed by the Tribunal with a clear stipulation that the re-engagement would be subject to the final disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court.
The aforesaid Civil Appeal was finally decided by the Supreme Court by the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.1997. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the said Civil Appeal, and set aside the Order dated 10.7.1991 passed by the Tribunal.
The petitioners, thereafter, again filed Original Applications before the Tribunal, inter-alia, praying for regularization of their services. The petitioner no.1 filed Original Application No. 240 of 1998 while the petitioner no.2 filed Original Application No.340 of 1998.
By the common Judgment and Order dated 3.2.2000, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Applications filed by the petitioners, inter-alia, observing that "re-engagement as per order dated 11.3.92 was subject to the final disposal of S.L.P. in Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. went against the applicants. The applicants can therefore, not now claim any benefit of re-engagement/regularization by filing another O.A.".
The petitioners, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14868 of 2000 before this Court, inter-alia, praying for quashing the said Judgment and Order dated 3.2.2000 passed by the Tribunal.
By the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2006, the Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court.
The petitioners have, thereafter, filed the aforementioned Review Application.
We have heard Shri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants and perused the aforementioned Review Application and the Affidavit and the Supplementary Affidavit filed in support of the aforementioned Review Application.
Having perused the grounds taken in the aforementioned Review Application and its supporting Affidavit and Supplementary Affidavit and having considered the submissions made by Shri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners/ applicants, we find that the petitioners/applicants are attempting to question the correctness of the said Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2006 on merits.
It is well settled that the Court while dealing with a Review Petition cannot act as an Appellate Court and consider the merits of the Judgment sought to be reviewed. A Review Petition cannot be an Appeal in disguise.
Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions:
1. Lal Mohammad Vs. S.D.O., Bareilly and another, 1959 ALJ 223.
2. Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Lal Chand (dead) & others, 2004 (55) ALR 690 (paragraph 45).
In view of the above legal position, the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2006 passed in the present Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14868 of 2000, cannot be gone into in a Review Petition. In case, the petitioners/applicants were aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order on merits, it was open to them to seek appropriate relief before the higher court.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Review Application filed by the petitioners/applicants lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Review Application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :1.6.2012
Ajeet
