Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Rajeshwar Prasaad on 3 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 38 of 2024
---------
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, P.O.+P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi.
3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Abhiyantran Bhawan
having its office at Kutchery Chowk, Post-GDO, P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi. ..... Petitioner/Respondents
Versus
1. Rajeshwar Prasaad, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Sinha, resident of
village+P.O. Bambhai via Ushri, P.S.+District-Arwal (Bihar),
presently residing at New Saket Nagar, Hinoo, P.O., P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi. ...... Writ Petitioner/Respondent.
2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation
Corporation having its office at Ashok Nagar, P.O.+P.S. Argora,
District-Ranchi.
3. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary State of Bihar, having
its office at New Secretariat Bailey Road, P.O.+P.S.-Punai Chack,
District-Patna. ...... Respondents/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate
---------
04/Dated: 03.03.2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This review application has been preferred by the
petitioners for review of the order dated 15.03.2021 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014.Since, the petitioners have sought
review of the writ court order; as such, brief facts as per the
pleadings made in the writ petition requires to be enumerated
herein, which reads as under: -
(i) The Writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) had filed
the writ petition praying inter-alia for a direction upon the
respondent authorities (Petitioners herein) to pay the entire
retiral benefits including unpaid wages, gratuity, earn
leave, ACP, group insurance, etc. along with pension. Writ
Petitioner further prayed for a direction upon the respon-
dent-authorities especially State of Jharkhand to determine
the service condition for regularization of service in the Mi-
nor Irrigation Department, State of Jharkhand as directed
by the State of Bihar at the time of deputation w.e.f.
11.01.2000 from Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation
(hereinafter referred as BHALCO) to Minor Irrigation De-
partment at Ranchi Minor Irrigation Monitoring and Valua-
tion Division, which was subsequently shifted to Dhanbad.
The Writ petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the or-
der contained in Memo No. 1168 dated 26.10.2013 issued
by the office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Diver-
sion, Dhanbad; whereby the revision of pay of the writ peti-
tioner in the 6th Pay Scale which was given earlier vide let-
ter No. 279 dated 20.03.2009 was withdrawn.
(ii) The Writ Petitioner had joined service of BHALCO as
Store Keeper on 01.11.1975 and worked till
10.01.2000.Subsequently, he was sent on deputation to the
sanctioned post of correspondence clerk in Minor Irrigation
Department, Ranchi for three years w.e.f. 11.01.2000
though the service conditions of the Writ Petitioner were to
be decided by the Department subsequently; but the same
was never done. On 20.03.2009, vide office order No. 279;
the benefit of 6th Pay Revision Commission was made ap-
plicable to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Writ
petitioner subsequently retired from service from the Minor
Irrigation Division, Dhanbad on 31.03.2013. After his supe-
rannuation, the Writ petitioner made a representation be-
fore the respondent-authorities for payment of arrear of
salary and other retiral benefits. Pursuant thereto, the Res-
pondent-State of Jharkhand has withdrawn the benefit giv-
en to the Writ Petitioner on account of revision of pay scale
on the basis of the recommendation made by 6th pay revi-
sion. The action of the Respondents was challenged by the
petitioner by preferring a writ application being W.P.(S) No.
1935 of 2014.
(iii) After hearing the parties, vide order dated
15.03.2021, the writ petition was allowed and the following
order was passed:-
"15. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions,
all the three issues has been decided in favour of the
petitioner. As such, the impugned letter as contained
in memo no. 1168 dated 26.10.2013, is hereby,
quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall make a
representation before the respondent no. 4 for that
period when he was posted at BHALCO and if any
amount is still due; then the respondent State of
Bihar shall calculate the same and take a decision
on the claim of the petitioner and pay the same.
So far as the claim of regularization is concerned;
in view of the aforesaid findings; the respondent-
State of Jharkhand shall take a formal decision for
regularization of this petitioner in view of the fact
that it was not a case of transfer on deputation
rather it has been held to be appointment on
deputation for the sole reason that the petitioner was
never repatriated and the parent organization was
on the verge of closure and is in winding up process
and as per the statement of learned counsel for
JHALCO, it has never revived...."
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that respondent No. 1 retired from the office of
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Dhanbad on
deputation basis, as such, he would be considered as employee
of BHALCO. He has further submits that since the respondent
No. 1 was still an employee of BHALCO therefore his case is
covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
22.11.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10515/2013 (arising out
of SLP(C) No. 30291/2011) i.e. State of Jharkhand & Ors. v.
Harihar Yadav & Ors.
3. It has also been submitted that there is no delay in filing
the instant review application as the Contempt (Civil) Case No.
798 of 2021 was disposed off vide order dated 17.06.2022 as a
reasoned order dated 28.04.2022 was passed by the present
petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed a Civil
Miscellaneous Petition being C.M.P. No. 589 of 2022 for
restoration of the Contempt (Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 which
was finally restored vide order dated 24.02.2023.
He has further submitted that the cause of action for
filing the instant review arose on 09.02.2024 when an order
was passed in Contempt (Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 wherein it
was observed that the reasoned order dated 28.04.2022 issued
by the Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government
of Jharkhand cannot be treated as compliance of order dated
15.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has
submitted that the review petition filed by the petitioners
suffers from grave delay and latches as the same has been filed
on 21.3.2024 i.e., after more than 3 (three) years from the
passing of order dated 15.03.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014.
The order for passing of formal order of regularization was
passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014 on 15.03.2021 and
therefore the submission of the petitioners that cause of action
arose only on 09.02.2024 cannot be sustained.
The Contempt (Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 was dropped
vide order dated 17.06.2022 on the submission of the
Petitioners/Respondent Authorities that the order has been
complied with. However, the said submission was false as the
order for regularization was not passed by the petitioners and
therefore the respondent No. 1 filed C.M.P. No. 589 of 2022 for
restoration of Contempt (Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 and
considering the said facts, this Court restored the Contempt
(Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 to its original file vide order dated
24.02.2023 passed in C.M.P. No. 589 of 2022.
5. It has further been submitted that there is no ground for
review in the instant case as the twin test of exercise of power
of review i.e., error of fact or law apparent on record and any
new fact which could not be brought after exercise of due
diligence, is not fulfilled in the present case. The judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 10515/2013
relied upon by the petitioners is on a different fact which is not
applicable to the present case. Moreover, the said judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court was delivered on 22.11.2013 itself
much prior to the order sought to be reviewed; hence the same
was very much in possession of the Review-Petitioners. Relying
upon said submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.
1 has prayed that the review petition filed by the petitioners is
not maintainable and hence deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on records including the order sought to
be reviewed. This Court before proceeding to examine as to
whether this case is a fit case for review of the order dated
15.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014, deem it fit and
proper to refer the scope of review and the jurisdiction of the
review court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius and Ors1., has explained the scope of review and
the grounds when review jurisdiction can be exercised. Para 32
of the judgment reads as under:-
"32. Before going into the merits of the case it is well to bear in
mind the scope of the application for review which has given
rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the
scope of an application for review is much more restricted than
that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code
of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XLVII, Rule
1 of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has
only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits
fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on
three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not
be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed,
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record and (iii) for
any other sufficient reason."
7. In the above referred case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
carved out the principles to be followed by the Review Court
and facts which is required to be seen while exercising the
power of review is that there must be an error apparent on the
face of record or the fact which is important for just and
appropriate appreciation of the lis which could not have been
brought to the notice of the Court in spite of due diligence.
8. The petitioners have preferred the instant review on the
ground that the case of the respondent No. 1 is covered by the
AIR 1954 SC 526
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.11.2013
passed in Civil Appeal No. 10515/2013 (arising out of SLP(C)
No. 30291/2011)titled State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Harihar
Yadav & Ors.
This Court has gone through the judgment dated
22.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
referred case, the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by the
Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 77 of 2009 and order dated
12.01.2009 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No.
2935 of 2009. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 2935 of 2009 were
the employees of BHALCO who have approached the High Court
for absorption in JHALCO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
judgment dated 22.11.2013 closed the issue of absorption of
employees of BHALCO in JHALCO.
9. However, the issue involved in the present case is
different. The respondent No. 1 had filed writ petition being
W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2021 for regularization of service in the
Minor Irrigation Department, State of Jharkhand. The issue
involved in the writ application was "whether the case of the
Respondent No. 1 will be treated as transfer by deputation or
appointment by deputation". The said issue was decided in
favour of the Respondent No. 1 / Present Writ Petitioner with a
direction that the State of Jharkhand to pass a formal order of
regularization.
Thus, the case of the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to
be covered by the judgment dated 22.11.2013 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10515/2013.
10. Further, this Court has referred the scope of review
rendered in the judgment referred to hereinabove wherein there
are two requirements to exercise the power of review i.e., (i)
there must be an error apparent on the face of record and (ii)
that the fact which is important for just and appropriate
appreciation of the lis but could not have been brought to the
notice of the Court in spite of due diligence.
As stated hereinabove, the judgment dated 22.11.2013
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.
10515/2013 is not applicable in the present facts for the
reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs. Even otherwise, the
same cannot be a ground for review of the order dated
15.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014 as the present
petitioners cannot be said to be in ignorant of the judgment
dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 10515/2013.
11. Further, the present petitioners have filed the review of
the order dated 15.03.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014. This
Court directed that a formal order of regularization be passed in
light of the fact that the case of Respondent No. 1 was of
appointment on deputation. The contempt case being Contempt
(Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 was disposed of vide order dated
24.02.2023 based on the submission on the part of the
petitioners herein that the order dated 15.03.2021 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014 has been complied with. Therefore,
the Respondent No. 1 had filed C.M.P. No. 589 of 2022 for
restoration of Contempt (Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021 which was
allowed vide order dated 24.02.2023.
12. Even the submission of the present petitioners that the
cause of action for filing review arose only on 09.02.2024 when
order was passed in Contempt (Civil) Case No. 798 of 2021, is
misconceived and devoid of merit as the petitioners have sought
review of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014 and not
the review of the order whereby the Contempt (Civil) Case No.
798 of 2021 was restored. This Court finds that the dropping of
the Contempt (Civil) Case in the first instance was on the basis
of the submission of the State of Jharkhand that the order
passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014 has been complied with.
13. This Court further finds that the review application is
filed after more than 3 (three) years of the passing of the order
in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014 and no plausible explanation is
given by the petitioners for such delay and latches in filing of
the review application.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v.
Bhailal Bhai & Ors2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically
held that normally the limitation prescribed for any proceeding
under the Limitation Act shall be considered to be reasonable in
a Writ Proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and any period beyond that shall be normally considered to be
unreasonable. The intent of the Legislature in the matters of
writ proceedings is also evident from the fact that there is only
30 days limitation prescribed for filing an appeal. In the present
fact of the case, there is a delay of almost 3 (three) years which
has not been explained by the petitioners; as such, the present
review application is also hit by latches.
14. This Court, after taking into consideration the facts in its
entirety and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with
respect to the power of review, is of the view that the instant
review petition deserves to be, and is, hereby dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
AIR 1964 SC 1006
