Dr. Jitendra Pratap Singh And 58 ... vs State Of U.P.Through Its Chief ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4071 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 24
 

 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 709 of 2004
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Jitendra Pratap Singh And 58 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Chief Secy. U.P.Govt.Lko.And 3ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Prasad Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

(Order on Review Application No.33875 of 2020)

Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for review applicant and Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties.

Review application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.709 (S/B) of 2004 (Dr. Jitendra Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others).

Delay in filing the review has already been condoned and therefore, the matter is being heard on merit with Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of review applicant has submitted that the judgment and order dated 02.08.2019 has noticed the fact that similar dispute as in question in the writ petition is engaging the attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.33951 of 2018. It has been submitted that once the aforesaid Special Leave Petition is already pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, direction issued in the judgment for consideration of grant of same service benefits as have been made applicable and paid to persons similarly situated as the petitioners, could not have been made. It is submitted that the same therefore constitutes an error apparent on the face of record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has disputed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the review applicant with the submission that the aforesaid liberty had been granted in the judgment impugned only on the basis of submission by learned counsel for writ petitioners that persons similarly situated as the petitioners have been granted certain service benefits even during pendency of proceedings before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It is submitted that noticing the said fact, it was left open to the opposite parties in the writ petition/review applicant to have considered the grant of same and therefore the ground indicated in the review application does not constitute an error apparent on the face of record.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that the ground for challenging the judgment and order impugned in review application does not amount to an error apparent on the face of record since liberty had been granted to review applicants only for consideration of grant of same service benefits as have been made available and paid to persons similarly situated as the petitioners, primarily on the basis of submissions advanced by learned counsel for writ petitioner.

In view of aforesaid, the review application being devoid of merits is dismissed.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

Order Date :- 19.3.2021

Subodh/-