Allahabad High Court

Mohan Swaroop And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 March, 2021

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Civil Misc. Review Application No.7 of 2020
 

 
In re:-
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11964 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohan Swaroop And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

1. Review has been sought by the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh and its officials of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2018, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11964 of 2018 and in two other connected cases, relying upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 35935/2019, dated 8.1.2020. The order of Supreme Court dated 8.1.2020 is reproduced hereinafter:-

"By referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the learned Solicitor General submits that the initial engagement of the petitioners in the said writ petition was obtained on the basis of fabricated documents. The Government did not get an opportunity to file counter affidavit in the other writ petitions which were disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 14.11.2018 of this Court passed in Sabba Shanker Dubey versus Divisional Forest Officer (Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018 etc.).

He submits that the point pertaining to the initial engagement/entitlement of the Respondents being improper has not been considered by the High Court. He seeks leave to withdraw these Special Leave Petitions with liberty to approach the High Court by filing review petitions.

Permission is granted.

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

We are informed that a contempt has been filed by the Respondents. Contempt proceedings shall not be taken up till the review petitions are decided by the High Court."

2. It is after expiry of 11 months of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the review application alongwith application for condonation of delay has been filed on 20th November, 2020. The delay condonation application has been allowed by a separate order of the date, passed on the delay condonation application.

3. A counter affidavit alongwith misc. applications have been filed by the writ petitioners opposing the prayer made by State in the review petition. The writ petitioners contend that filing of the review application is actually a fraud played on the Court and various submissions are made to substantiate such plea. The review petition has been heard and the records have been minutely scrutinized so as to maintain sanctity of the Court proceedings.

4. I have heard Sri Arimardan Singh Rajput and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State and its authorities, and Sri Pankaj Srivastava for the writ petitioners.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties, it would be necessary to notice essential facts in light of which the present petition came to be decided earlier and for appreciating the arguments raised in review matter.

6. Writ Petition No.11964 of 2018 came to be filed by Mohan Swaroop (writ petitioner no.1) and Jwala Prasad (writ petitioner no.2), seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 08.03.2018, 27.03.2018 and 02.04.2018 passed by the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively (Annexure Nos.18, 19 & 20 to this writ petition);

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to continue to pay Rs.18,000/- as minimum of pay scale to the petitioner which they were getting prior to the aforementioned impugned orders during the pendency of the present writ petition;

(iii) issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; &

(iv) award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

7. A counter affidavit was filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 19.7.2018 in the writ petition, running into 166 pages, followed with a supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 16.8.2018. The matter was heard and this Court found as a fact that both petitioners were working since 1991 and were already granted minimum of pay scale admissible to a Class-IV employee in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal, reported in 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1595. Both the petitioners were receiving minimum of pay as per Vth, VIth and VIIth pay commission report and it was only vide orders impugned that minimum pay as per VIIth pay commission report (Rs.18,000/- without any emoluments) was withdrawn and the petitioners were restored minimum of VIth pay commission report (Rs.7,000/- without any emoluments). Facts, as were brought on record of writ petition and the counter and supplementary counter affidavits were taken note of and a further opportunity was given to the State and its authorities to examine their stand in the matter. The Additional Chief Secretary of the Forest Department was called upon to clarify as to how the benefit of minimum of pay scale previously granted in light of the orders of Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra) could be unilaterally withdrawn and why the direction of the Supreme Court be not enforced? The order passed by this Court on 16.8.2018 contains necessary facts of the case and also prima facie observations of the Court, and therefore, is extracted hereinafter in its entirety:-

"This petition, along with connected writ petitions, have been filed by the petitioners, who claim to be working in the Forest Department of the State since prior to 29.06.1991, and therefore, they have rendered more than 28 years of service to the Forest Department of the State. They allege that they are discharging work which is specifically assigned to them in the respective Forest Divisions by the competent authorities. According to the petitioners, specific orders of posting are passed for them and charge is also delivered to them of the work allotted to them and except for denial of designation, they are performing work at par with other employees of the Forest Department who have been regularized.

They complaint that the State has been rather unfair in dealing with their plight; in as much as, even after having worked for nearly three decades, they are yet to be regularized and even minimum of pay scale, which was being granted to them for the last many years, has been arbitrarily withdrawn. Petitioners have asserted, in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, that pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.02.2002 in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal reported in 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1595, they were allowed to draw minimum of pay scale, except allowances, etc. which was, otherwise, admissible to their counterparts in the Government. The direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Putti Lal (supra), as is contained in paragraph no. 5, is relied upon, and is reproduced hereinafter:-

"5. In several cases, this Court, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay-scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counterpart in the Government. In our opinion, that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay-scale being received by their counter-part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily-wager. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to."

Petitioners contend, in paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition, that they were paid minimum of pay scale on month-to-month basis as per the reports of the Pay Commission enforced from time to time. According to the petitioners, they were initially allowed pay scale of Rs. 2,550/- per month as per the 5th Pay Commission report from 2002 to 2009; whereafter, minimum of pay scale, admissible as per the 6th Pay Commission report, was extended to them from 11th March, 2010 to December, 2016. The minimum of pay scale for a Class - D employee was Rs. 7,000/- per month. After the 7th Pay Commission report has been enforced in the State vide Government Order dated 22.12.2016, these petitioners were paid minimum of pay scale admissible to a Class - D employee @ Rs. 18,000/- per month from March, 2017 onwards. Specific averment, made in that regard in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, has not been controverted in paragraph no. 26 of the counter affidavit. What is stated in reply is that reports of the Pay Commission are meant only for full time government servants and have nothing to do with the daily wagers. It is also stated that the status and work of the petitioners are akin to seasonal labourers, who are engaged for few months only in a year without completing 240 days in the said year. The fact, however, that petitioners were receiving minimum of pay scale as per 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commission reports, since long is not denied. Along with the writ petition, petitioners have annexed passbooks of their Bank Accounts in Bank of Baroda, as per which they had been receiving salary in their accounts from U.P. Treasury @ Rs. 18,000/- per month. Petitioners have also annexed the orders, as per which specific work was allotted to them.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed, in which an order dated 15.11.2015 of the Regional Forest Officer, Mahof Forest Range, Pillibhit Forest Division, Pillibhit has been annexed, which shows that petitioner no. 1 is described as 'Equal Pay Worker' and has been assigned work in Tharu Hut number 1 and 2. Similar orders have been annexed to show that specific work has been allotted to other petitioners. The pay bills of certain persons from other divisions (who are not petitioners), who are claimed to be similarly placed, have been annexed, in which their gross pay is shown at Rs. 18,000/-. According to the petitioners, their claim for regularization is yet to be considered in terms of the directions issued in Putti Lal (supra), as also the Rules framed for regularization and that, protection of payment at minimum of pay scale admissible to a Class - IV employee is the only protection which has been extended over the years by the State. Their grievance is that even this bare protection has been withdrawn on an erroneous assumption.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a letter appears to have been sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 15.06.2017, which mentions about grant of minimum of pay scale to such persons in the past. The letter of 15.06.2017 has been relied upon in order to contend that respondents, themselves, have admitted that petitioners were being paid at minimum of pay scale, which was admissible to a Class - C or Class - D employee. The first paragraph of the letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 15.06.2017 reads as under:-

foHkkx esa dk;Zjr lewg ^x^ ds nSfud osru Hkkxh dkfeZdksa dh NBs osru vk;ksx dh laLrqfr;kss ds lkn`"; U;wure osru dh Lohd`fr ls lEcfU/kr 'kklukns'k [email protected]&3&10&300¼12½@09 fnukad 25&05&2010 ,oa lewg ^^?k^^ ds nSfud osru Hkksxh dkfeZdksa dks NBs osru vk;ksx dh laLrqfr;ksa ds lkn`"; U;wure osru dh Lohd`fr ls lEcfU/kr 'kklukns'k la[;k 830¼1½@pkSng&3&10&300 ¼12½@09] fnukad 25&05&2010 ds }kjk ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j okn flfoy vihy la[;k 3634 iqRrh yky cuke m0iz0 ljdkj ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 21&02&2002 rFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k fjV &[email protected]&3&499¼823½ @96 ] fnukad 03&05&2002 ds vuqikyu esa lewg ^x^ dk U;wure osrueku :0* [email protected]& rFkk lewg ^?k^ dk U;wure osrueku :0& [email protected]& Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA

It appears that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest sought a clarification from the State Government as to whether the benefit of minimum of pay scale, which now stands enhanced in view of 7th Pay Commission report, is to be extended to these persons or not?

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the letter of 15.06.2017 incorrectly describes the status of the petitioners as daily wagers; in as much as, the petitioners, admittedly, were being paid @ of minimum of pay scale, and were being described as 'Equal Pay Worker' in all communications and therefore, use of expression for them as 'daily wager' was with an ulterior intent. This letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which was followed with subsequent letters, has been replied by the Government on 08.03.2018, stating that benefit of Government Order dated 22.12.2016, whereby, 7th Pay Commission report has been enforced, would be applicable only for regular employees and not upon daily wagers. This Government Order is, therefore, challenged in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Putti Lal (supra) as well as the subsequent order of the Apex Court in Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division and Another Vs. Lakshmi Chandra, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016, decided on 02.02.2016, which arose out of the contempt proceedings drawn pursuant to the orders passed in Putti Lal (supra). Paragraph nos. 5 to 8 of the aforesaid judgment, read as under:-

"5. It is seen from the records of the contempt petition that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State had filed an affidavit before the High Court to the effect that necessary instructions had been issued to all the officers concerned to implement the directions referred to above with regard to payment of minimum of the payscale to the daily wagers.

6. We direct the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests, U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. to file separate affidavits before the High Court on the implementation of the orders referred to above. In case, the workmen have not been paid the amounts as per the orders, they shall see that wages are paid in terms of the orders within a period of one month from today and the affidavit in that regard shall be filed before the High Court within two weeks thereafter.

7. In case, the orders are not implemented, the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall not be eligible to draw their salaries from the month of April, 2016, without permission from the High Court.

8. Subject to the above directions, these civil appeals are disposed of with no orders as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of."

Petitioners, then, contend that the Apex Court, in a recent judgment in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176, has been pleased to reiterate the principles, which are in consonance with the directions issued in Putti Lal (supra). Submission is that once the petitioners were being paid salary @ of minimum of pay scale for years together, as per the pay scale fixed from time to time by the State Government, which included payment at minimum of pay scale as per 7th Pay Commission report, it would be wholly arbitrary and unjust for the respondents to withdraw such benefit from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned Government Orders; in as much as, it would clearly be an act in teeth of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would be contemptuous in nature.

Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents, has vehemently urged that the action of the State under challenge is strictly in accordance with law and has cited a large number of judgments, including the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 (State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chhiddi and Another) decided on 24.09.2015. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and Others, passed in Appeal (Civil) 3527 of 1998 decided on 18.11.2003, to contend that unless a person is regularly appointed to a post, he would not be entitled to minimum of pay scale. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh and Others reported in 2009 (9) SCC 514. Learned counsel submits that benefit of minimum of pay scale, if was being extended to the petitioners, the same was under threat of contempt and was not warranted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as has been referred to in the aforesaid judgments.

From what has been contended before this Court, on the basis of material placed on record, this Court, prima facie, finds the following facts to exist on records:-

(i) petitioners were engaged from 1990-91 onwards and this engagement, with few break, has been continued for different periods. However, their uninterrupted continuous working for the last more than 10 years is virtually unquestioned;

(ii) specific orders have been passed sanctioning minimum of pay scale to the petitioners. To substantiate such plea, petitioners have annexed an order dated 19.10.2013 passed in favour of the petitioner no. 1, as per which he has been placed in minimum of pay scale @ Rs. 7,000/- per month from the month of October, 2013. This order reads as under:-

^^bl ou izHkkx dh cjkgh jsat esa dk;Zjr nSfud Jfed Jh eksgu Lo:i iq= Jh :iyky fuoklh xzke fHkyS¸;k xkao[ksM+k ftyk ihyhHkhr tksfd o"kZ 1991 ls nSfud osru ij dk;Zjr jgs] dks vkt fnukad 15-10-2013 dks vk;ksftr p;u lfefr dh lqLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij U;wure osru :0 [email protected]& izfrekg dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksus ds fnukad ls Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS fd budh rSukrh bl ou izHkkx dh cjkgh jsaat esa tufgr esa dh tkrh gSA bl rSukrh gsrq bUgsa dksbZ ;k=k HkRrk ns; ughaa gksxkA^^

(iii) records further reveal that petitioners have been assigned specific work pursuant to the specific orders passed by the competent authority from time to time;

(iv) minutes of meeting dated 15.10.2013 have also been brought on record by the respondents, which acknowledge that the petitioners are working since long, but it is not possible to regularize their services as of now. However, recommendation has been made to grant them minimum of pay scale in light of orders passed in different courts proceedings, and also by the concerned authorities of the Forest Department. The working of petitioners since long as well as payment of minimum of pay scale to them is, therefore, not in issue; and

(v) records also reveal that after 7th Pay Commission report was introduced, the minimum of pay scale was released to the petitioners and such benefit was granted to the petitioners from the month of March, 2017 onwards and got discontinued in March, 2018. According to the respondents, this benefit has been withdrawn because there was no approval of the State.

From the facts, noticed above, this Court finds that petitioners are continuing for the last several years/decades and the respondents, themselves, have granted benefit of payment to them at minimum of pay scale, although without any allowances. This arrangement, apparently, was followed by the respondents in view of the specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Putti Lal (supra) and has been reiterated under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.02.2016 in Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division and Another Vs. Lakshmi Chandra (passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016, decided on 02.02.2016).

Once the entitlement of the petitioners, to be paid minimum of pay scale admissible to a Class - IV employee, has been acknowledged by the respondents, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that minimum of pay scale, which is applicable now, would not be extended to them (the petitioners). What is relevant is the minimum of pay scale and not the Pay Commission reports; in as much as, Pay Commission reports are enforced for different periods depending upon the price index, etc. It is not in dispute that 7th Pay Commission report has been enforced in the State. The minimum of pay scale, as on date, would be the minimum of pay scale which is admissible to other similarly placed employees of the State carving out distinction for persons who are receiving salary in the minimum of pay scale, so as to deny them minimum of pay scale admissible to a similarly placed Government servant as on date, only on the ground that they are treated as daily wager, would be wholly irrational and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of the directions issued by the Apex Court.

Prima facie, the State would not be justified in denying minimum of pay scale to the petitioners at par with other similarly placed Government employee (except allowances, etc.) only because there is no specific order granting minimum of pay scale to the daily wagers. The denial of minimum of wages on the strength of Government Order dated 08.03.2018 is also found to be unsustainable in law. This interpretation, on part of the respondents, appears to be inconsistent with and in teeth of the directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. Although learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has referred to various orders passed by the Apex Court, but those judgments, apparently, will have no applicability in the facts of the present case; in as much as, a specific direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to employees of Forest Department (which has already been implemented by them), would continue to be applicable upon them, particularly, when the latest order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter se, parties arising out of the same contempt proceedings, reiterates the direction issued by the Apex Court in Putti Lal (supra).

In view of the above, it would be appropriate to extend one more opportunity to the respondents to examine their stand and to call upon the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Department of the State of U.P. to clarify as to how the benefit of minimum of pay scale, which has been extended to these persons under the orders of the Apex Court, referred to above, could be withdrawn unilaterally by the State pursuant to the Government Orders impugned? The Officer shall also explain as to why the direction of Apex Court dated 02.02.2016 to deny salary to him and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest be not enforced?

The Officer concerned, before filing his reply, is expected to be conscious of the fact that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, otherwise, binding upon all the authorities by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Let the required affidavit be filed by 31st of August, 2018. Put up this case, in the additional cause list, on 31.08.2018. "

(Emphasis supplied)

8. The matter was adjourned again on 31.8.2018 requiring the authorities to file their affidavit, after examining their own records in light of the previous observations made in the matter. The order dated 31.8.2018 reads as under:-

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Pursuant to the order passed on 16.8.2018, matter is listed today. Learned Standing Counsel has made a request to defer the hearing as various materials are being collected in the process.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is proceeding to harass and victimize all those who have complied with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that officers are in contempt and appropriate proceedings be drawn against them.

In view of the fact that the matter is being deferred on request of the learned Standing Counsel, this Court need not make any observations on the oral prayer of the petitioners, at this stage.

Let this matter be listed in the additional cause list on 13.9.2018 at 2.00 PM. Required affidavits shall be filed, in terms of the previous order, by the Additional Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, by the next date fixed, failing which both the officers shall remain personally present before the Court alongwith records.

It shall be open for the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions with regard to averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed today."

9. The respondents in their counter affidavit primarily urged that petitioners have not worked continuously since 1991, as was alleged in the writ petition, and that there were breaks in their working from time to time. A plea was also taken that benefit of minimum of pay scale was allowed previously in the year 2013 in ignorance of correct facts about petitioners' continuous working since 1991.

10. The petitioners filed a rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit and prayed for initiating perjury against the officials of the Forest Department. It was also contended that respondents have filed false affidavit about petitioners' working not being continuous since 1991 and that the stand of respondents was contrary to their own record.

11. The above accusation of petitioners led to filing of a supplementary counter affidavit by Principal Secretary, Forest, State of U.P., on 12.9.2018, running into 88 pages. A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 10.9.2018, running into 113 pages. The Sub-Divisional Officer also filed a short counter affidavit on 11.9.2018. An application thereafter was filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 25.9.2018 to withdraw his previous affidavit to which an objection was also filed by the petitioners. Third supplementary counter affidavit was thereafter filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 29.9.2018, which was followed with yet another counter affidavit filed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 3.10.2018. These affidavits formed part of the record of writ petition.

12. The matter remained pending and in between the roster changed. An order came to be passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 1.10.2018 nominating this Court to hear the present petition alongwith connected matters. On 3.10.2018, the matter was heard again at length and following orders were passed:-

"1. This matter has been placed today pursuant to an order of nomination passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice on 1st October, 2018.

2. A detailed order had been passed on 16.8.2018, requiring the respondents to file an affidavit in light of the observations made therein. Matter was thereafter adjourned on different occasions and following orders were passed on 25.9.2018:-

"This matter is listed today pursuant to an order passed on 20th of September, 2018.

An application has been filed for permitting the learned Standing Counsel to withdraw the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 10th of September, 2018. This application is supported by the affidavit of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, wherein it is stated that some of the paragraphs were not properly worded and for which the deponent tenders an unconditional apology.

Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly contests the application and contends that materials have been brought on record, which would constitute an act of ex-facie contempt, and therefore, the respondents ought not to be allowed to withdraw their affidavit.

Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that an affidavit in reply to the writ petition and the observations made by this Court in the order dated 16.8.2018 would be served upon the petitioners by Monday i.e. 1st of October, 2018.

Application for withdrawal would be considered on the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 3rd of October, 2018. Petitioners would be at liberty to file a reply to the affidavits of respondents by then.

List this case in the additional cause list on 3rd of October, 2018.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest shall remain personally present before the Court along with the relevant records."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is present before the Court. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava appearing for the respondent State have been heard on an affidavit filed by the concerned respondent.

4. This Court on 16.8.2018 had recorded following prima facie findings:-

"(i) petitioners were engaged from 1990-91 onwards and this engagement, with few break, has been continued for different periods. However, their uninterrupted continuous working for the last more than 10 years is virtually unquestioned;

(iii) records further reveal that petitioners have been assigned specific work pursuant to the specific orders passed by the competent authority from time to time;

5. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed today by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the prima facie findings contained in the order dated 16.8.2018 are sought to be challenged by contending that benefits were wrongly granted to the petitioners earlier, and that officers who had extended benefits to the petitioners are being proceeded with departmentally. Attention of the Court has been invited to para 18 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which reads as under:-

"18. That the Department had also proceeded to take action against the erring officials, who were instrumental in granting minimum pay to the petitioners in year 2013. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner no.1, who was working in another Forest Division of Pilibhit Forest area has been granted minimum pay by the other Division and not the Divisional Forest Officer under whom he has worked. Similarly it is also surprising that the document, which has been considered by Selection Committee at the time of granting minimum of the pay scale to petitioner nos.1 and 2 in the year 2013, the committee was not having the work details of the petitioner no.1 after 2010 and the petitioner no.2 after 2006 and on account of all these facts the Department has proceeded against the erring officials, who have improperly granted minimum pay to the petitioners without examining their record thoroughly and in teeth of rule-8 of the Regularization Rules, 2001."

6. In para 17, the officer admits that certain duties were allotted to petitioners and that orders might have been issued by the then Divisional Forest Officer, at local level. It is then stated that notwithstanding such records the nature of engagement of petitioners remain that of a daily wager. Para-17 of the supplementary counter affidavit is also reproduced hereinafter:-

"17. That the petitioners in their Supplementary Affidavit have only annexed two documents pertaining to them as all other documents have no relation with them. One such document is letter dated 15.11.2015 annexed as annexure no.1 to the second supplementary affidavit dated 21.5.2018. It is stated that regarding some duties allotted to the petitioners, the orders might have been issued by the then Divisional Forest Officer alongwith the orders for other regular employees by the then Divisional Forest Officer at local level. The duties of the petitioners were of the nature of daily wagers only but instead of maintaining their muster roll, vouchers have been prepared for their payment because of accounting procedure for payment of minimum pay. It is to be made clear that no order has been issued from the Headquarter level of the U.P. Forest Department regarding assigning any specific duty of responsibility to any daily wager getting minimum of the pay scale."

7. Oral submission is advanced on behalf of respondents contending that there were different divisions in Pilibhit where petitioners were engaged and while petitioners were working in one division, some of the privileges have been granted by officers of other divisions. This oral submission, however, is not supported by any specific pleading in the supplementary counter affidavit. The respondents have also placed reliance upon a chart contained in Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit to suggest that petitioners were not working on a regular basis. This chart, however, contains a remark column as per which the basis of such contention is the certificate or cashbook item. The officer swearing the affidavit has not owned any responsibility with regard to working of the petitioners, with reference to the records available in the office concerned. The assertions, on facts, are based upon only two records. Facts ought not to be pleaded with reference to selective records, when the respondents are in possession of entire records with them. It is not in dispute that petitioner no.1 has been working since 1991. Similar is the situation regarding other petitioners. The selection committee has already granted benefit of minimum of pay scale to petitioner in the year 2013 and the dispute appears to have been raised only when minimum of pay scale as per the VIIth Pay Commission Report was withdrawn under the impugned orders. It is at this stage that respondents have virtually started questioning all previous decisions extending privileges to the petitioners on the basis of records available. Such orders have otherwise not been withdrawn in any proceedings known to law. Although the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was directed to remain present with records to assist the Court, but upon being asked to produce relevant records relating to petitioner no.1, as a test case, no records are available or produced. The arguments advanced on behalf of respondents are otherwise not found to be supported by reliable material.

8. In the facts and circumstances, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to grant one further indulgence to respondent no.2 to verify their own records and to file a specific affidavit on factual aspects, which are being sought to be raised now. The concerned respondent would have the entire records examined for the relevant period upto granting of minimum of pay scale to petitioner no.1. The records of Nawabganj Range, Bareilly would also be examined for the period 1995 to 1997. Such records relating to petitioner no.1 would also be produced before the Court on the next date. It would be open for the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to take assistance of the concerned Divisional Forest Officer for the purpose. The respondents shall also disclose as to under which provision of law prior approval is required to be obtained by the Divisional Forest Officer before granting any benefit to persons such as petitioners, particularly when the Divisional Forest Officer is the appointing authority for them. The records maintained in the office of Principal Secretary, Forest, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest relating to grant and withdrawal of minimum pay scale to petitioners would also be produced. The required affidavit shall be filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, by the next date fixed.

9. Put up this case on 12th October, 2018.

10. Personal appearance of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is dispensed with, unless directed otherwise by the Court. The Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit and Bareilly, however, shall remain personally present before the Court, on the next date fixed, alongwith records to assist the Court."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

13. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest filed yet another supplementary counter affidavit on 11.10.2018, running into 210 pages. The Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit also filed an affidavit on 11.11.2018. It was in this backdrop that matter was fixed for hearing before the Court on 17.11.2018. It would also be relevant to note that much of the resistance to petitioners' claim was put forth by the respondents on the ground that previous orders of the Supreme Court were not final, and that the Apex Court was seized of the issue relating to entitlement of a daily wage employee to receive minimum of pay scale. The previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra) was questioned in light of certain later judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court of India. When the matter was taken up on 17.11.2018 the Court was apprised that the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others), Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018, decided on 14.11.2018, has examined the entitlement of daily wagers working for decades to receive minimum of pay scale admissible to a Class-IV employee and delivered a detailed judgment recognizing right of persons such as petitioners, who were continuing on temporary basis for decades to receive minimum of pay scale. Previous judgments of the Supreme Court on the basis of which minimum of pay scale was sanctioned to the two petitioners was reiterated. Since the issue stood settled by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) no further arguments on the issue were advanced and this Court consequently proceeded to follow the judgment of Supreme Court in the case Sabha Shanker Dube (supra), as also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Others Vs. Putti Lal, reported in 2002 (2) UPBLEC 1595 & 2006 (9) SCC 337, and State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148. The Government Order dated 8th March, 2018 which was relied upon by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to withdraw minimum of pay scale as per the VIIth pay commission report was quashed and the respondents were commanded to restore minimum of pay scale to the petitioners. In connected petitions also the Government Order dated 8th March, 2018 as also the consequential directions were challenged and therefore, connected petitions are also disposed off on same terms.

14. The facts of the case had clearly been noticed in the order of the Court dated 16.8.2018, as per which petitioners were initially allowed minimum of pay scale as per the Vth pay commission report from 2002 to 2009; VIth pay commission report from 11th March, 2010 to December, 2016, and after VIIth pay commission report was enforced in the State vide Government Order dated 22.12.2016 the petitioners were paid minimum of pay scale admissible to a Group ''D' employee from the month of March, 2017 onwards. They were also allotted specific work by different authorities. The payment of minimum of pay scale since 2002 onwards has been found to be in conformity with the directions issued by the Supreme Court on 21.2.2002 in State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal (supra). Para 5 of the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:-

(Emphasis supplied)

This direction has been reiterated in Civil Appeal No.879-883 of 2016, arising out of contempt proceedings.

15. At this stage, it would be worth noticing that factual issues that were raised by the authorities before the Court were confined to the aspect of continuous working of the writ petitioners since 1991 on the ground that there were breaks in their working from time to time. The respondents, at no stage, had set up a plea of petitioners' appointment having been made on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Attention of the Court, at no stage, was invited to any fraudulent document having led to petitioners' initial engagement in the forest department as Class-IV employees on daily wage basis in 1991.

(emphasis supplied)

16. As a matter of fact the Additional Chief Secretary of the State filed a supplementary counter affidavit before this Court on 12.9.2018 in response to the order passed by this Court on 16.8.2018, in which the Additional Chief Secretary annexed the report of Selection Committee constituted by the Forest Department for regularizing services of daily wage employees. This report is signed by five responsible officers of the Forest Department, consisting of Regional Forest Officers and Divisional Forest Officer(s), in which petitioner nos.1 and 2 both were found entitled to regularization on the basis of their past working since 1991. Petitioners' working from 1991 was duly certified and the only objection taken was that during the last about 28 years petitioners have not worked for eight odd years, and that petitioners had also not worked continuously and their working contained breaks. The further stand of the State was that benefit of minimum of pay scale was not extended to petitioners on account of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Putti Lal (supra), and that such benefit was accorded to petitioners only on 19.10.2013. Para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary is reproduced hereinafter:-

"4. That so far as direction of this Hon'ble Court regarding clarifying as to how the benefit of minimum of pay scale, which has been extended to these persons under the orders of the Apex Court in Putti Lal's case could be withdrawn unilaterally by the State pursuant to the Government Orders impugned is concerned, it is worth mentioning that the petitioners were never extended the benefit of minimum of the pay scale in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition). The facts related with providing minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners are as under:

The petitioner no.1 was accorded the benefit of minimum of the pay scale vide order dated 19.10.2013 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) on the basis of the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit in its meeting held on 15-10-2013. This benefit was given to the petitioner no.1 and other 26 workers without any rationale. The Selection Committee had held that the workers whose cases were considered, had not been found eligible for regularization/minimum of pay scale for want of continuity in their work in previous years. The Selection Committee held that the regularization of the 27 workers including petitioner no.1 who were under consideration was not possible but recommended sanctioning of minimum of pay scale to them on self-determined basis of their long experience. The work details of the petitioner no.1 as contained in the list annexed with minutes of meeting dated 15-10-2013 exhibit that he had worked just for two months in Nawabganj Range, Bareilly from 1995 to 1997 (on the basis of certificate) but the information given by Divisional Forest Officer, Bareilly Forest Division, Bareilly vide his office letter no. C-13/2-1 dated 13.07.2018 speaks that he had not worked at all in Nawabganj Range of Bareilly Forest Division, Bareilly from 1995 to 1997. In other subsequent years till the year 2009, the work of petitioner no.1 ranges from 03 months to 10 months. Hence, it is clear that in view of the eligibility criteria laid down in Regularization Rules, 2001, the petitioner no.1 was not eligible for regularization and consequently not for sanctioning minimum of the pay scale in light of the judgment and order dated 21-02-2002 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Putti Lal's case.

Copies of the aforesaid minutes of meeting of the Selection Committee dated 15.10.2013 and letter dated 13.07.2018 of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Bareilly Forest Division, Bareilly are annexed herewith as Annexure No.SCA-1 and SCA-2 respectively.

Similarly, petitioner no.2 was unwarrantedly provided with the minimum of the pay scale by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit Forest Division, Pilibhit. He was sanctioned minimum of the pay scale vide F.O. No.30/16F-1 dated 01.10.2013 by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit Forest Division, Pilibhit on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 23.09.2013. In the seniority list attached with minutes of meeting of the Selection Committee dated 23.09.2013, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.4. In column no.2 of this list, interim order of this Hon'ble Court dated 23.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.15299/10 is mentioned and the operative part of the interim order is reproduced in column no.8 of the list which reads as under:

"In view of the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition as the petitioner's representation is still pending before respondent no.2, in such circumstances, respondent no.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularization in view of the regularization rules strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months."

In column no.11 of the list, remarks are incorporated relating to the ineligibility of the petitioner no.2 for regularization in view of his breaks in service but even then providing minimum of pay scale (Rs. 6050/-) was recommended for him mentioning insignificant break therein. Hence, in case of the petitioner no.2 also, when he was not found eligible for regularization, recommending and providing/sanctioning him minimum of the pay scale without any rationale was unwarranted and a wrongful act on part of the authorities concerned. In this regard, the work details provided by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit Tiger Reserve, Pilibhit exhibit that the petitioner no.2 has not worked at all in the two consecutive years of 1996 and 1997 and similar is the situation for the years 2000 to 2005. In other years from 1990 to 2006 the working period ranges from two (02) months to the maximum of nine (09) months.

Copies of the aforesaid order dated 01.10.2013, minutes of meeting of the Selection Committee dated 23.09.2013, and work details of petitioner no.2 are annexed herewith as Annexure No. SCA-3, SCA-4 and SCA-5 respectively.

On account of the unwarranted and unlawful recommendations made by the Selection Committee and the orders issued by the Appointing Authority based upon them, the action of the members of the Selection Committee and that of the Appointing Authority concerned amounts to serious misconduct on their part and the disciplinary proceedings for such misconduct are being instituted against them in accordance with the Rules as per the jurisdiction therefor.

As stated above, the orders for sanctioning of minimum pay scale to the petitioners are adverse in nature and it is well-settled principle of law that anything adverse cannot be perpetuated for eternity whenever detected. It is also worth considering that the petitioners, nowhere in the writ petition, have stated that they are/were eligible for regularization in accordance with the statutory rules. The respondents are constrained to issue orders for cancelling the orders regarding sanction of minimum of pay scale to the petitioners till the final outcome of the present writ petition as this Hon'ble Court is actively considering the issue involved in the writ petition."

17. On behalf of petitioners it was strongly urged that respondents have not produced complete records and have deliberately withheld the records relating to their engagement of certain periods, which was in different Depots of the Forest Department. Applications were made to direct the respondents to produce their original records. It was also urged on behalf of petitioners that respondents are attempting to question petitioners' non-working for certain periods only in order to justify their act of unilateral withdrawal of the benefit of minimum of pay scale previously sanctioned to petitioners in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra).

18. It was not necessary for this Court to examine the continuous length of petitioners' working as the State itself admitted in its counter affidavit that both the petitioners were working since 1991; and that they were already granted minimum of pay scale since 2013. Plea of break in service, from time to time was taken for the first time to deny minimum of pay scale and to justify the unilateral withdrawal of seventh pay commission report and restoring the petitioners to minimum of pay scale as per the sixth pay commission report, notwithstanding the fact that seventh pay commission report was already enforced. In the opinion of the Court occasional gaps in petitioners' working over the last 28 years was not material for withdrawing minimum of pay scale to the petitioners. This was so as the respondents had already admitted that during the last about 28 years the petitioners had worked for about 20 years and the dispute was only about 7-8 years. Moreover, their continuous working for the last more than 10 years was almost undisputed. Factual issues in this regard may have had some relevance for the purposes of passing orders of regularization, but it would not be a relevant consideration for withdrawal of minimum of pay scale already granted for the last several years. It may also be noticed that the alleged absence of 7-8 years' working by the petitioners was seriously disputed by the petitioners and the possibility of breaks being artificial could not be ruled out. The basis of such objection was also the cash book and complete records had not been verified by the department. The report of five member committee certifying petitioner's entitlement to the minimum of pay scale was also not set aside. Factual issues not relevant for the purposes was attempted to be raised by the respondents but it required no further consideration in view of the admitted facts and the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra).

19. The judgment of this Court dated 17.11.2018 was also challenged in special appeal on the limited ground that minimum of pay scale cannot be granted prior to 14.11.2018, in view of the orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra). This issue was dealt with by the Division Bench while disposing of Special Appeal Defective No.231 of 2019, vide order dated 14.3.2019, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"Heard Sri Anand Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents on the delay condonation application and the merits of the appeal.

The delay of 75 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the delay condonation application supported by affidavit.

Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2019 is allowed.

The appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 17.11.2018 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition as filed by the respondents has been allowed quashing the government order dated 08.03.2018 and directing the appellants to pay the minimum pay-scale as per the 7th Pay Commission Report as well as the arrears within three months.

The respondents were temporary Class-IV employees working in the Forest Department of the State of U.P. for several years. In an earlier round of litigation they were directed to be paid the minimum of the pay-scale admissible to the Class-IV employees whether working on temporary basis, casual basis or daily-wage basis. In pursuance thereof the respondents were getting the minimum of the pay-scales initially as per the 5th Pay Commission, then as per the 6th Pay Commission and finally as per the 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. the year 2017.

However, the minimum of pay-scale as per the 7th Pay Commission was stopped to them on account of the government order dated 08.03.2018 which provided that the benefit of the minimum of pay-scale as per 7th Pay Commission Report would be made available to only to those who are the regular employees and not to those who have been engaged on temporary basis/casual/daily-wage basis.

The submission of Sri Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants is that even though the respondents may be entitle to the minimum of pay-scales as per the 7th Pay Commission but they are not entitle to arrears according to the same beyond the period 1st December, 2018 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others decided on 14.11.2018.

The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgement and orders of the High Court held the employees to be entitled to be paid minimum pay-scales applicable to the regular employees working on the same post and for payment of the same pay-scale w.e.f. 1st December, 2018.

The principle that was laid down was that the temporary employees are also entitled to the minimum pay-scales applicable to the regular employees. The date from which it was directed to be paid was under the facts and circumstances of the said case.

In the present case the respondents were already getting the minimum of the pay-scales applicable to regular employees as per the 7th Pay Commission from the year 2017 and therefore, they would be entitled to continue receive the same, notwithstanding the government order dated 08.03.2018 which has been quashed.

The said government order could not have made any distinction between the employees in matter of payment of wages on the basis of any particular date. Thus, we do not find any error or illegality on part of the writ court in quashing the aforesaid order.

Once the said government order is quashed the respondents are to be restored back in the same position as existed prior to the said government order in the matter of payment of salary. Since they were receiving minimum of the pay-scales as per the 7th Pay Commission from the year 2017 they would continue to receive the same even today.

The direction to make the payment to the respondents of the minimum of the pay-scale as per the 7th Pay Commission Report would not mean that the respondents would be entitled to any arrears for the period prior to 2017 and the said direction is confined only for the period 08.03.2018 onwards.

No other point has been raised and argued before us.

All applications moved by either of parties stand disposed of.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of."

20. It is in the above background that the merits of the review application is required to be determined by this Court.

21. The review application contains seventeen grounds but none of them even remotely suggest that the petitioners had secured engagement in the Forest Department on the strength of fabricated documents, as was alleged on behalf of the State before the Supreme Court of India. Ground no.8 to 17 questions the right of a daily wager to be paid minimum of pay scale in light of various judgments of the Supreme Court. As per the applicant State the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Putti Lal (supra) does not lay down correct law. Ground no.13 to 15 in the review application is reproduced hereinafter:-

"13. Because the Hon'ble Apex Court at the time of passing of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2002 in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Putti Lal (Civil Appeal No.3631 of 1998) has not considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Harbans Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported as 1989 (4) SCC 459, Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Vikram Chaudhary reported as 1995 (5) SCC 210 and State of Haryana and others Vs. Jasmer Singh and others reported as 1996 (11) SCC 77 that the daily rated workmen could not claim the minimum of the regular pay of the regularly employed therefore, the judgment and order dated 21.02.2002 would be treated as per the curium ignoring the earlier laws laid down by the Apex Court itself.

14. Because Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Balaram Sahu reported as 2003 (1) SCC 250 and also in the case of State of Haryana and another vs. Lakhraj and others reported as 2003 (6) SCC 123 after discussing and following the decision of Jasmer Singh case has held Equal Pay for Equal Work is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.

Therefore, the Apex Court observed that the State has to ensure that minimum wages are prescribed for such workers and the same is paid to them.

15. Because, subsequent to the judgment of State of U.P. vs. Putti [2003 (6) SCC 337], Hon'ble Apex Court (three-Judge bench) in the case of State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh [2006 Vol. 9 SCC], disposed of large number of civil appeals collectively by a common order. The salient facts of this case were- ........."

(Emphasis supplied)

22. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) above contentions cannot be entertained by this Court. This Court is not required to answer the respondents' plea, in a review petition, that the judgment of Supreme Court in Putti Lal (supra) does not lay down correct law. The wisdom of State in taking such plea, before this Court, in review, is best left unanswered.

23. Ground no.7 of the review application is also reproduced hereinafter:-

"7. Because the Hon'ble Court failed to consider that there was a total break of 8 years, 10 months in regard petitioner No.2."

The above plea also cannot be a ground for review in light of the observations made in the previous part of this judgment.

24. Ground no.4 of the review application states that petitioner no.1 is claiming regularization and minimum pay scale on the basis of forged and fabricated document and has not come with clean hands. This ground also does not allege any plea of fraud about initial engagement of petitioners. During the course of argument the counsels appearing for the State were asked to show as to which of the document relied upon by the petitioners for seeking employment/regularization/minimum of pay scale is forged and fabricated but the learned counsels could show no material in support of such factual plea. The plea of fraud set up by the State for seeking review of the judgment dated 17.11.2018, therefore, remains unsubstantiated.

25. The grounds of review broadly are that (i) some of the documents furnished by the petitioners to certify their working during the period of their alleged absence, during the pendency of writ petition, are not reliable as they contain partial verification only; (ii) the second ground urged is that the document furnished by petitioners now about their working for the year 1991, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 do not contain signature of any authority on the first page and that while first page is written in blue ink, the signature of the signing authority is in black and the handwriting varies. It is also asserted that petitioner no.1 has not worked prior to 1998 and his working in social forestry division is not certified. These arguments are wholly fallacious as the report of petitioners' working for about 20 years are clearly certified by a team of senior officials upon verification of their own records and no reasons are disclosed to doubt such official records and the affidavit of the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department itself. The documents which are now being doubted at the stage of review are the documents produced by the petitioners themselves during the pendency of the writ petition to substantiate their uninterrupted continuance. Even if these documents are ignored yet the admitted record and affidavit of the Principal Secretary leaves no room of doubt about petitioners' working of about twenty years since 1991. The last 10 years working remains uninterrupted. The fact that petitioners were allowed minimum of pay scale in 2013 is also admitted and there is no reason to doubt it. Similarly, questioning of petitioners' continuance during 1995-1997 at Bareilly on account of difference in the parentage of petitioner no.1 also cannot be a ground to review the judgment.

26. The records further show that even after withdrawal of S.L.P. on 08.01.2020 the respondents did not care to file any review. An application was filed by the writ petitioners in June, 2020 stating that the respondents have unleashed a series of arbitrary actions against thousands of daily wagers engaged by the Forest Department taking advantage of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 8.1.2020. It is after nearly 06 months of filing of such application that State has filed review petition in only 03 cases including the present matter.

27. The plea of petitioners that S.L.P. has been withdrawn by the State on the strength of false accusations with an intent to derive unfair advantage and thereby playing fraud upon the Court would clearly be going beyond the contours of the proceedings of review application, and therefore, need not be adjudicated in this proceedings.

28. Law with regard to scope of a review petition has been examined by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments. It cannot be an appeal in disguise. It has to be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Supreme Court has observed as under in para 17 to 20, which are reproduced:-

"17. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court in Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 651] held as under: (SCC p. 656, para 10)

"10. ... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. The learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise."

18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] , held as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12)

"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.

12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of ''second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."

19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.."

29. Analyzing the facts of the present case in light of the settled scope of review proceedings and for the detailed discussions held above, it is apparent that the respondents/applicants have not been able to show any error apparent on face of the record which may require this Court to review its judgment dated 17.11.2018. Review petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.3.2021

Anil

(Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)