Public Works Department vs Ramlal Verma
2024 Latest Caselaw 3011 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Public Works Department vs Ramlal Verma on 1 February, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                           1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                        &
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                              ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            REVIEW PETITION No. 1565 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    STATE    OF   M.P.  THROUGH  PRINCIPAL
                                 S ECR ETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    EXECUTIVE          ENGINEER, PUBLIC      WORKS
                                 D E P A R T M E N T , MANDLESHWAR,        DIST.
                                 KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIST.        KHARGONE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           RAMLAL VERMA S/O LATE SHRI MANGILAL VERMA,
                           AGED 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O: BEDIYA
                           PIPALGONE ROAD, SUB DIVISION - BARWAHA,
                           MANDLESHWAR , DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY MS. SWATI UKHALE - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                           Vijay Kumar Shukla passed the following:
                                                            ORDER

The present review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of final order dated

31.08.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No.122 of 2018.

2. The respondent filed a petition before this Court claiming for grant of penesionary benefits on the post of Gang Coolie. The said petition was disposed off in the light of the judgment passed by the another Single Bench in W.P. No.207 of 2016 (Bhagirath vs. State of M.P.) directing that the judgment passed in the said case will apply mutatis mutandis in the present case.

3. It is argued that judgment passed in the case of Bhagirath (supra) has been wrongly applied by the learned Single Judge. Relying on the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Mamta Shukla vs. State of MP reported in (2011) 3 MPLJ 210 and the law laid down in the case of Kala Bai Prajapati

vs. State of MP & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) MPLJ 115, the learned Single Judge and the writ appellate court committed an error while issuing a direction for grant of pensionary benefit to the petitioner because the petitioner being a daily wager cannot claim his right for grant of pension. We find that the aforesaid contention was not raised either before the writ court or before the appellate court. Apart from that along with the present review petition also no document has been filed to show that the petitioner was working as daily wager. The court has noted that the petitioner was working in the service for 37 years on the post of Gang Coolie since 1978 and retired from services on 03.06.2016.

4. We do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting any interference in exercise of review power. It is well settled that cases are heard and decided only once. To make departure from this statutory rule, the review application must strictly fall within the established parameters. In light of settled principles of law, in our considered opinion, there is no merit and substance in the review petition as in a review, the Court has a very limited power

circumscribed by definitive limits. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.

                               (RAVI MALIMATH)                                  (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
                                 CHIEF JUSTICE                                          JUDGE
                           s