Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ... vs Sharwan Kumar on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 163 of 2022
Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Infrastructure And Industrial Development U.P. Lko. And Others
Opposite Party :- Sharwan Kumar
Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
This is a review application filed by the State seeking review of the judgment and order dated 05.02.2020 passed in Special Appeal (D) 586 of 2019.
By means of the order sought to be reviewed, a direction was issued to the state government to take a decision on the resolution of the Board of Directors in their 61st meeting for the grant of benefit available under 6th pay commission report to the respondent-petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
The direction issued by this Court in the aforementioned special appeal remains yet to be acted upon in the back drop of a new development i.e. resolution passed by the Board of Directors in its 62nd meeting held on 28.12.2020.
We are informed that the state government has not taken up any challenge against the judgement/order dated 05.02.2020 passed in the aforementioned special appeal and it is only in the light of subsequent resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 28.12.2020 that the present review application has come to be filed after the compliance report filed by the State on the strength of resolution dated 28.12.2020 came to be rejected in the contempt proceedings vide order dated 18.11.2022 passed in contempt application no.1996 of 2020.
The review application is delayed by 285 days after excluding the permissible exemption. The explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is the pendency of the contempt proceedings besides other ministerial reasons which have been pointed out.
The direction issued by this Court on 05.02.2020 is based on the fact situation of the case which existed on the date of deciding the special appeal. Nothing is brought on our notice which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record in the judgement sought to be reviewed or the discovery of any new fact which adopting due diligence by the review-petitioner upto the date of decision could not be laid hand on and had a bearing on the merit of the case.
The fact of overcoming the court's decision by a subsequent resolution brought to our notice that too, after a long delay when contempt proceedings have failed up to the stage of appeal, the explanation offered does not convince us to allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application.
The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected and consequently the review application.
However, we leave it open to the state to avail the appropriate remedy as may be permissible under law.
Order Date :- 16.1.2023/Shahnaz
