Allahabad High Court
Jaleel Ahmad Ansari (In Wria 1932 Of ... vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies Of ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16794
Court No. - 13
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 19 of 2022
Applicant :- Jaleel Ahmad Ansari (In Wria 1932 Of 1992)
Opposite Party :- Registrar Co-Operative Societies Of U.P. Lucknow (Now Registrar And Commissioner) And 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Order on Application for condonation of delay)
Heard learned counsel for review applicant and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State counsel for opposite parties.
Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing review against judgment and order dated 18.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1932 (S/S) of 1992.
Office has reported a delay of 339 days as on 06.04.2022.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that after the judgment rendered in aforesaid writ petition, the same was challenged in Special Appeal, which was dismissed with Special Leave Petition there against and review petition also being rejected. It is submitted that since despite directions issued by this Court with regard to payment of benefits to petitioner for the post of Cooperation Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative), other service benefits accruing to the applicant such as time scale etc. were not made and were in fact rejected by means of order dated 16.02.2022, the need for filing review of the judgment was established by applicant since there was no specific direction regarding benefits of time scales/assured career progression. It is submitted that it is in these circumstances that delay has been explained and requires to be condoned.
Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner but does not dispute the fact that subsequent to passing of impugned judgment, the order dated 16.02.2022 was passed rejecting applicant's claim for benefit of time scale and A.C.P.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it being evident that relief sought by the applicant for the said benefits having been rejected on 16.02.2022, present review application has been filed.
Considering aforesaid, cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient and as such delay in filing review application is condoned.
Order In memo Of Review Application
Review application has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 18.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1932 (S/S) of 1992.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that by means of aforesaid judgment and order, the petition was allowed holding that the petitioner was entitled to post retiral benefits for the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) deeming the order impugned in writ petition dated 21.03.1992 to have been quashed.
It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.04.2019 was thereafter challenged in Special Appeal Defective No.441 of 2019 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2019. Special Leave Petition (Civil) bearing Diary No.3464 of 2020 was also dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2020 with Review Petition Bearing Diary No.13973 of 2020 also being dismissed vide order 15.09.2020.
It is submitted that however in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.04.2019, only post retiral benefits have been made available to the petitioner without any consequential service benefit such as time scale and A.C.P. being provided without making any fixation of salary. It is therefore submitted that present review application has been filed for a direction to the opposite parties to grant all the consequential preretirement service benefits to petitioner which have accrued and given to similarly situated as well as persons junior to the petitioner.
It is submitted that such consequential benefits were in fact prayed for in prayer no.3 of the writ petition.
It is therefore submitted that since such service benefits to which petitioner was entitled has not been provided despite being prayed for, error is apparent on the face of record.
Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the present review application is not maintainable for the simple reason that prayer being sought in the petition by means of review has already been sought by petitioner in Writ A No.1513 of 2022 which has been filed challenging order dated 16.02.2022 whereby prayer made by petitioner for time scale and benefit of assured career progression scheme has been rejected. It is also submitted that no specific prayer having been made in the petition, such a relief can not be granted to a review application.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prayer sought for in the writ petition was for quashing of order of reversion dated 21.03.1992 and for portion of order dated 22.02.1992 whereby petitioner was sought to be replaced by direct recruits. The prayer made is as under :
"2. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ of appropriate nature commanding the opposite parties not to revert the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order dated 22.02.1992 Annexure 1 and to accommodate the direct recruits against 66% posts reserved against the recruitment quota of 66%."
2-A issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant or to cause to grant government pension to the petitioner after treating the services rendered by him on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) i.e. from 13.12.1990 to 30.06.2014 qualify for pension and to make payment of his entire post retiral benefits pension, gratuity and amount of leave encashment etc. including its arrears w.e.f. the date of his retirement alongwith interest@ 18% per annum within a shortest time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."
It is noticeable that apart from the prayer made specifically in prayer 1, 2, 2A was a general prayer no.3 for grant of other consequential or incidental relief to which petitioner was found entitled.
It is also noticeable that by means of impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2019, after noticing facts indicated therein above, direction was issued holding the petitioner entitled to post retiral benefits for the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) deeming the impugned order dated 21.03.1992 to have been quashed.
It is therefore evident from material on record of the writ petition that there was no specific prayer made for grant of any time-scale or benefit of the assured career progression scheme.
It is also evident and admitted by petitioner in paragraph 17 and 20 of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay that subsequent to the impugned judgment, petitioner made an application before opposite parties for grant of consequential service benefits which was rejected by means of order dated 16.02.2022. The said order admittedly has been challenged in Writ A No.1513 of 2022, which is admittedly still pending.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced herein above, it being evident that prayer sought by means of review application having not been specifically made in the writ petition and with a separate Writ A No.1513 of 2022 having already been filed by petitioner for the said relief, no error apparent on the face of record is discernible.
In view thereof, review application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
However dismissal of review application shall not be an impediment in relief sought for by petitioner in Writ A No.1513 of 2022.
Order Date :- 24.3.2025
Subodh/-
