Allahabad High Court
Sharda Prasad Mishr vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63353-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 134 of 2023
Applicant :- Sharda Prasad Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
(C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023)
1. This application for condonation of delay has been filed praying for condonation of delay in filing Review Application and it is supported by an affidavit.
2. Reasons shown are sufficient.
3. Application for condonation of delay is allowed.
4. Delay in filing the review application is condoned.
(Order passed on Review Application)
1. Heard Shri Sharda Prasad Mishra, who appears in person and pressed this review application.
2. The office has submitted a report that against our order dated 14.2.2022 passed in Special Appeal No. 142 of 2020, Sharda Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8581 of 2022, which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13th May, 2022
3. This review application has been filed on 4.7.2022 without disclosing that petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against our order dated 14.2.2022, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.5.2022. The petitioner was heard by us because he had appeared in person. According to him he is dis-satisfied with non-compliance of this Court's order dated 27.7.1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 3496 (SS) of 1992 Sharda Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others. A short order was passed by the Writ Court on 27.7.1999 which is quoted herein below:-
"Hon'ble P.C. Verma,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been regularized on the post of Naib Tehsildar his grievance stands redressed so far on the claim of regularization is concerned, but his grievance remains so far as his further promotion is concerned. The petitioner may make a representation to this effect and in case any junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the next higher post the petitioner shall also be given promotion after considering the representation made by him.
Board of Revenue shall pass appropriate order within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of finally.
No order as to costs."
4. The petitioner has thereafter submitted a representation on 7.8.1999 which had been rejected by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 9.2.2000. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 2046(S/B) of 2009, which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 24.7.2019. The review application was dismissed by the Writ Court on 20.2.2020. The petitioner filed Special Appeal by challenging the orders passed by the Writ Court with the allegations that the order of the Writ Court dated 27.7.1999 had not been complied with yet.
5. This Court had considered the judgment rendered by the Writ Court and also the order passed by the Board of Revenue and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient compliance of the directions issued by the Writ Court dated 27.7.1999 and the Court had observed that because of adverse entry and censure entry in his service record, he had been considered, but not found fit to be promoted as Naib Tahsildar, as initially there was a criteria for promotion on merit.
6. Today when the petitioner-in-person was heard by this Court he has again raised only one ground to pray for review of the order passed by us which is, that the order dated 27.7.1999 has not been complied with.
7. This Court finds no merit in the submissions made by the petitioner, the review application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
Muk
