Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 10 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 28.10.2021
Pronounced on: 10.11.2021
RPSW No.20/2018
RAVINDER KUMAR ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: Mr. B. A. Misri, Advocate
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, ASGI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
1. Petitioner has filed the instant review petition seeking review of
order dated 7th September, 2018 passed by the Writ Court, whereby writ
petition of the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner on the
same analogy as has been adopted in the case of Ghulam Hassan Baba
who had been granted temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993 and
was regularized in group 'D' post on 17.04.1997.
2. In the review petition it is contended that the Writ Court, while
adjudicating the matter, has considered relief only to the extent of
regularization while as the other reliefs claimed by the petitioner have not
been considered nor any finding has been returned by the Court.
3. The review petition has been resisted by respondents by filing a
reply thereto. In their reply, respondents have submitted that the review
petition is not maintainable as the writ petition has been disposed of on
the basis of statement made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the record of the Writ Court.
5. The contention of review petitioner is that in the writ petition,
besides claiming the relief of regularization, petitioner had also sought
certain other reliefs which included a direction upon respondents
restraining them from making any deduction in the pay and salary of the
petitioner for the period corresponding to duration undergone in service
under the directions of the Court dated 11.09.1996 and 24.06.1998 or
from giving latent effect to the termination order set aside by judgment
dated 22.04.2011. It is further averred that another direction asking the
respondents to reckon the entire period towards the service without any
break and to release other service benefits which shall accrue to the
petitioner in consequence to regularization, was also sought but while
disposing of the writ petition, the Writ Court only directed the
respondents to accord consideration to the claim of petitioners regarding
regularization. It is contended that it was incumbent on the Writ Court to
deal with each of the reliefs which petitioner had claimed in the writ
petition and not confine it to only the relief regarding regularization.
Thus, according to the petitioner, there is an error apparent on the face of
record of the impugned order which is required to be corrected. Petitioner
in support of his contentions, has relied upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of Aijaz Ahmad Bhat v. State & Ors., 2011 Supreme (J&K)
543.
6. In order to determine merits of the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the review petition, it would be apt to quote the contents of
the order sought to be reviewed:
"01. By the nature of relief sought for, this writ petition is
admitted to hearing and taken up for final hearing.
02. Mr. B. A. Misri, the learned counsel, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, states that he will feel satisfied in
the event the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing
the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the
petitioner as espoused therein within a reasonable
timeframe.
03. in view of the aforesaid statement of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration
to the claim of the petitioner on the same analogy as has
been adopted in the case of Ghulam Hassan Baba who had
been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and was
regularized in group D post on 17.04.1997. Needful, on the
part of the respondents, be done strictly in accordance with
the law and the rules governing the field within a period of
four weeks' from the date the certified copy of this order
along with the writ petition with all its annexures is made
available to them by the petitioner.
7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it becomes clear that the
writ petition has been disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for
the petitioner. It is clearly provided in the aforequoted order that the
respondents have to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner on
the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of Ghulam Hassan Baba
who had been granted temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993 and
was regularized in group 'D' post on 17.04.1997.
8. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that in para (8), it has been
clearly stated by petitioner that his case has direct equation with the co-
employee Ghulam Hassan Baba who had been granted temporary status
w.e.f. 01.09.1993. Since petitioner had claimed parity with aforesaid
Ghulam Hassan Baba, therefore, the Writ Court directed the respondents
to accord same treatment to the petitioner as had been accorded to
Ghulam Hassan Baba while considering claim of the petitioner. The order
of Writ Court is very clear that it is claim of the petitioner which he has
raised in the writ petition which has to be considered by the respondents.
Therefore, the contention of petitioner that only one part of his claim is
to be considered by the respondents and other part is not to be considered
by the respondents in terms of the order sought to be reviewed is not
tenable.
9. Apart from the above, the order sought to be reviewed has been
passed with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore,
it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to turn around and challenge
the order which has been passed with his consent.
10. For what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any error
apparent on the face of record of the order dated 07.09.2018 which would
warrant exercise of jurisdiction of review by this Court. The review
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
10.11.2021
"Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.11.10 12:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
