The Insurance Medical Officer vs Ram Giri And 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4687 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010140932023




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : Review.Pet./82/2023

         THE INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER
         EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE E.S.I. SCHEME DISPENSARY, DHUBRI,
         REPRESENTED BY DR. PABITRA KUMAR DAS, 62 YEARS, S/O LATE
         KAMALA KANTA HIRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOHATI PART II, PO AND
         PS ABHAYAPURI, DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783384



         VERSUS

         RAM GIRI AND 3 ORS.
         S/O LT. GOVINDA GIRI, R/O BHABANI NAGAR, W/NO.12, DHUBRI TOWN,
         P.O. and DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DEPTT. OF LABOUR
          DISPUR
          GHY-6

         3:SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER

          O/O THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AUDIT
          ASSAM
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM

         4:THE ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER
          EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE E.S.I. SCHEME
         ASSAM
          HOUSE NO. 19
          BYE LANE 2 BACK SIDE OF ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL
          BELTOLA
                                                                              Page No.# 2/3

             JAWAHARLAL NAGAR
             PO KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM 78102

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR F U BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                          ORDER

Date : 20-11-2023 Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner. Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent No. 3.

The review petitioners were the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the connected writ petition preferred by the respondent Ram Giri as writ petitioner assailing the decision of the authorities to send him on retirement w.e.f. 30-04-2012 by unilaterally altering the entries in the service book of the petitioner, that too, when he was on the verge of his retirement. According to the writ petitioner, he would have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31-12-2014 but due to the manipulation in the service book, he has been prematurely asked to go on retirement w.e.f. 30-04-2012.

The review applicants did not appear when the writ petition was taken up for hearing.

After considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court had found that the impugned action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition, in altering the service book of the writ petitioner without putting him on notice was arbitrary and illegal. As such, by the order dated 13-03-2023 the W.P.(C) No. 7856/2015 preferred by the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner, the writ Page No.# 3/3

petition was disposed of with the following direction:-

"However, since the petitioner has already retired from service, this writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondents to treat the petitioner to be in service up to 31/12/2014 for the purpose of notional fixation of his pay/ pension and accordingly, give him the arrear pensionary dues, if any, payable as per Rules."

Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that if the order of the Court is allowed to stand in its present form, then the petitioner would have to be treated to be in service till attaining the age of 61 years, which will be dehors the rules. In order to drive home his point, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has addressed elaborate arguments.

However, after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that entertaining the plea raised by the review petitioner would lead to rehearing the writ petition on merits, which would not be permissible in a review petition. Nothing has been pointed out to show that there was any error apparent on the face of the record calling for allowing in this review petition. In a review petition, the Court cannot enter into the merit of the matter afresh.

If the petitioner is, in any manner, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13- 03-2023 passed by this Court, the remedy would lie elsewhere and not in a review petition.

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE GS

Comparing Assistant