Delhi High Court
Allahabad Bank vs Rajan Malhotra on 8 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 161/2013
% 8th July , 2014
ALLAHABAD BANK ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAJAN MALHOTRA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.10608/2014(Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of
Review Petition No. 302/2014
1. This appeal was disposed of by a detailed judgment on 21.4.2014.
Appeal was dismissed. Issue in the appeal pertained to claim in the suit filed
by the respondent-employee/Sh. Rajan Malhotra for joining back services on
account of finality of judgments in earlier proceedings which held that the
employee had not resigned.
2. I am forced to note that review applications are filed by counsel these
days as routine.
3. Matters are heard and detailed judgments are passed. If a person is
aggrieved, no doubt that aggrieved person has a right to file an appeal,
however, review application can only be on a limited ground of there being
an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the statement
of the respondent is noted in para 6 of the judgment dated 21.4.2014 that he
has not encashed any amount towards provident fund, gratuity etc, and
which statement is said to be false and a basis for filing this review petition.
The review petition is sought to be supported by a receipt (Ex.DW 1/1)
dated 8.7.1995 signed by the respondent.
4. In para-6 of the judgment dated 21.4.2014, besides noting that
amounts have not been accepted towards gratuity, provident fund etc by the
respondent, it is noted that this specific issue that the earlier judgments do
operate as res judicata but would not be binding because the
employee/respondent has waived his right by accepting retirement dues was
never raised in the pleadings of the appellant-bank, no issue was framed, and
therefore no such argument could be raised by the appellant-bank. This was
so noted in para-6 of the judgment and the appeal was dismissed.
5. The present review petition is just an endeavour to reargue the appeal
which has been heard and dismissed by a detailed judgment dated 21.4.2014,
and which judgment also records that the respondent/employee did not press
his related appeal RSA 234/2013 for seeking back wages.
6. In view of the above, as there is no error apparent on the face of the
record, the review petition is totally misconceived and is therefore dismissed
with costs of Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Legal Aid Services Committee positively within a period of four
weeks from today, failing which the Registrar General can recover this
amount as arrears of land revenues.
7. List before the Registrar for ensuring compliance of the order of
deposit of costs on 11th August, 2014.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JULY 08, 2014
ib
