Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Purushottam Dass on 22 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010081242021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1051/2021
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECY., MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND
OCEAN DEVELOPMENT, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI
2: THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES MAHASAGAR BHAVAN
BLOCK-12
C.G.O. COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003.
3: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF METEROLOGY
INDIA METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT
MAUSAM BHAWAN
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 1100003.
4: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF METEOROLOGY
REGIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CENTRE
INDIAN METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT
GHY-781015
VERSUS
PURUSHOTTAM DASS
S/O. SRI SUNKARAM, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RETD.), R/O. VILL. P.O.
KANDI, TEH. BAROAH, DIST. KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH- 176054
Advocate for the Petitioner : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DUTTA
Linked Case : WP(C)/912/2010
PURUSHOTTAM DASS
S/O SHRI SUNKARAM
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
REGIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CENTRE INDIA METEOROLOGICAL
DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF INDIA
N.E. REGION
HEAD QUARTER
BORJHAR
PIN- 781015.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OCEAN DEVELOPMENT
NEW MEHRAULI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110016.
2:THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES MAHASAGAR BHAVAN
BLOCK-12
C.G.O. COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003.
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF METEROLOGY
INDIA METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT
MAUSAM BHAWAN
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 1100003.
4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF METEOROLOGY
REGIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CENTRE
INDIAN METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT
GHY-781015.
------------
Advocate for : MR.A AHMED
Page No.# 3/5
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
22.02.2022
Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for
the applicants. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent.
This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants effectively
for reconsideration of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court as far
back as on 18.05.2015. Not only this, the said order, i.e. the order dated
18.05.2015 was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the
applicants, but since the SLP was highly belated, their delay condonation
application was dismissed and the matter was not considered on merits.
Subsequently however, the applicants filed a review petition before this Court
for review of the order dated 18.05.2015, which was again dismissed on
18.11.2019 on merits. Now, this application has been filed by the applicants, as
already stated above, for reconsideration of the order dated 18.05.2015.
Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner who is the respondent in
this interlocutory application was working as an Administrative Officer in the
Meteorological Department, Government of India and was getting a pay scale of
Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10,500/-. His case was that the Administrative Officers
working in other Central Government departments were getting the pay scale of
Rs. 7500/- to Rs. 12000/- and, therefore, he was also liable to get the same pay
scale. Since this pay scale was denied by the Department, he was constrained to
Page No.# 4/5
file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati
Bench. The Original Application was dismissed on 18.11.2009. This order of the
Tribunal was put to challenge in a writ petition being WP(C) No. 912/2010,
which was finally allowed by the Division Bench on 18.05.2015, setting aside the
order of the Tribunal and directing that the petitioner be given the pay scale of
Rs. 7500/- to Rs. 12000/-. This order, as already stated above, was challenged
before the Apex Court by filing an SLP in the year 2016 which was dismissed on
25.07.2016 on the ground of delay. Thereafter, a review petition was filed before
this Court which was dismissed on 18.11.2019. Now the applicants seek
reconsideration of the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Division Bench
which effectively amounts to review, rather re-review, of the direction given by
this Court.
In the case of Sow Chandra Kante And Another vs Sheikh Habib, reported
in (1975) 1 SCC 674, Justice Krishna Iyer had observed as under:
"......... A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is
proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has
crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different
Counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually
covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously
insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the
rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a
routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the Court which
decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge
backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for Counsel to issue easy
certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle
which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are
jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We
regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent
phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing
which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on
points earlier put forward. May be, as Counsel now urges and then pressed,
our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The
present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has
the normal feature of finality."
Page No.# 5/5
What we are being asked to do here is not just a review of the Division
Bench order dated 18.05.2015. This was earlier put for review and the review
petition was dismissed. We are being asked to consider a review of a review. All
litigations must come to an end. This interlocutory application is totally
misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
