Madhya Pradesh High Court
Managing Director Poorva Kshetra ... vs Panchraj Tiwari on 10 December, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 RP-24-2020
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
RP No. 24 of 2020
MANAGING DIRECTOR POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRA CO LTD AND OTHERS .....Petitioner
Versus
PANCHRAJ TIWARI AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Coram :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Atul Sreedharan
Presence
:
Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General with Shri
Amalpushp Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.1.
ORDER (Oral)
(10-12-2021)
Per: Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
This review petition is filed seeking to review the order dated
21.11.2019 passed in WA No.1448 of 2019.
Learned Advocate General appearing for the review petitioners
contends that firstly consent was given for disposal of the writ petition only
on the question of law. That they were specifically told that the question of
law will be decided by the Court. Since, it is on this ground, consent was
given, however, the entire matter was decided on merit.
So far as this contention is concerned, we find it difficult to accept the
same. The consent that was given necessarily applied for the disposal of the
entire matter. Therefore, it cannot be circumscribed today to say that the
consent was given partly and not completely. Hence, we are unable to accept
the said submission.
The second submission is that it appears that the learned Single Judge
took into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2021.12.15 16:44:19 IST
2 RP-24-2020
in (2014) 5 SCC 101 in the case of Panchraj Tiwari Vs. M.P.S.E.B. The
specific contention of the petitioners was that in terms of Para 17 of the
judgment in the case of Panchraj Tiwari, the past services of the employees
rendered in the erstwhile REC Society were not counted even by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the respondent No.1 was directed to be placed at the
bottom of the seniority list in the respective cadre. Yet in Para 15 apparently
an erroneous finding is rendered that while treating him as Assistant Engineer
w.e.f. 15.3.2006, his past services have been counted. This aspect of the
matter was not considered by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division
Bench considered various other aspects and reversed the findings of the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, he contends that even if his submission that
the grounds urged by him were not considered by the Court is concerned,
when the finding of the learned Single Judge is sought to be reversed in
appeal, necessarily the appellate Court should have considered such a ground
and thereafter to hold as to why they disagree with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.
Apparently, the judgment under review does not indicate the same.
Therefore, we are of the view that the very basis on which the order was
passed by the learned Single Judge may not have been considered
appropriately, especially with reference to the aforesaid judgement. We are of
the view that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Even though
various other submissions have been made, we do not find it necessary to
advert to the same.
Consequently, this review petition is allowed. The order dated
21.11.2019 passed in WA No.1448 of 2019 is reviewed and recalled.
WA No.1448 of 2019 is restored to its file.
WA No.1448 of 2019 is admitted and posted for hearing in due course.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
Signature Not Verified
SAN CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2021.12.15 16:44:19 IST
3 RP-24-2020
SKM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2021.12.15 16:44:19 IST
