Satish Yadav And 11 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9437 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satish Yadav And 11 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 18 April, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


   		                                     Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57657                                       
 
						                        Reserved On:- 11.04.2025   
 
  							            Delivered On:- 18.04.2025                            
 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 11 of 2024 
 
Applicant :- Satish Yadav And 11 Others 
 
Opposite Party :- Union Of India And 4 Others 
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Sandeep 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manu Vardhana
 
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
 

 

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation No. Nil of 2023

Cause shown for delay in filing review application is sufficient.

Delay in filing of review application is condoned.

Delay Condonation Application is allowed.

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No. 11 of 2024

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the review applicant and Shri Manu Vardhana, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The above noted review application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for review of the judgment and order dated 19.02.2022 passed by this court whereby reinstatement of petitioners in his service was refused by this court.

3. Prayer has been made for issuing appropriate direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service along with back-wages.

4. Learned counsel for the review/petitioners submits that once this court found the reinstatement of petitioners to be illegal. This court ought to have directed reinstatement of the petitioners in service with full back-wages.

5. He has relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court in this regard:-

(i) Pradeep S/O Rajkumar Jain vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited and Others, (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 683,

(ii) Gowramma C. (Dead) by Legal Representatives vs. Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Another, (2022) 11 Supreme Court Cases 794; and

(iii) Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 689.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Manu Vardhana, has vehemently opposed the submission and has submitted that petitioners were engaged in a time bound project which came to an end. He has further submitted that the respondents approached the Apex Court against the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by this court but a Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court the order of High Court has attained finality. After a dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 13598 of 2022 decided on 12.08.2022 review of judgment and order dated 19.01.2022 of this court has been sought by filing time barred review application dated 18.12.2023.

7. After hearing the rival submission this court finds that the reinstatement of petitioners was refused by this court because they were retrenched from service more than 16 years ago, hence, they were directed to be given lump-sum compensation per workman / petitioner. The judgments placed before this court by counsel for the review applicants are distinguishable on facts. In the writ petition as well as this review application, no averment was made by the petitioners that during the period of their illegal retrenchment, they were not gainfully employed anywhere.

8. Hence, the review application filed by the petitioners cannot be allowed and is hereby, rejected.

Order Date :- 18.04.2025

Rohit