Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsh Vardhan Singh Rajpoot vs Vikram Singh Rajpoot on 27 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1577
1 RP-92-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 92 of 2025
HARSH VARDHAN SINGH RAJPOOT
Versus
VIKRAM SINGH RAJPOOT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of
CPC has been filed against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in M.P.
No.1715/2020, by which directions for reinstatement of respondent No.1 was
issued to the Society, who was illegally removed by way of a Resolution dated
28.05.2008, which was set aside by Assistant Registrar vide order dated
04.06.2011 and was confirmed in appeal by Joint Registrar vide order dated
17.04.2013, which later on when challenged by the review petitioner before the
Tribunal were set aside and the removal was held to be good, which when
challenged before this court in M.P. No.1715/2020 by the respondent, was held to
be bad in law and while setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated
27.08.2019 this Court had directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 in terms of the
order passed by the Assistant Registrar.
2. Assailing the said order one Harsh Vardhan Singh Rajpoot had preferred
this review petition alleging that after removal of present respondent No.1 from
the society he was appointed as salesman on 18.02.2010 vide Resolution of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1577
2 RP-92-2025
society and since he is being working for last 14 years, the order impugned
without making him as party has been passed, which is in total derogation of
principles of natural justice, therefore, deserves to be recalled and reviewed, as a
substantial right has accrued in his favour, which is being curtailed by the order of
this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner though had raised the aforesaid
solitary ground but had also tried to argue the case on merits and had submitted
that the appointment of respondent No.1 was purely contractual and after his
removal in the year 2008, the contract period itself had come an end in the year
2009 after expiry of period of one year, thus even otherwise, if it is assume that
termination of respondent No.1 was bad in law, since his contractual period has
already expired and thereafter the appointment of the review petitioner was made
on a vacant post, a right has accrued in his favour and in his absence any order
passed by the Tribunal or by this Court would be against the principles of natural
justice, therefore, they need to be recalled and reviewed.
4. He has further argued that since respondent No.1 has only worked for a
period of one year, in the light of judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 and in the
matter of Harinandan Prasad and another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of
Food Corporation of India and Another reported (2014) 7 SCC 190, wherein it
had been held that in case it is found that the termination is bad in law, since the
person had worked only for a limited period, the result should be payment of
compensation instead of reinstatement, therefore, as the respondent No.1 has only
worked for a period of one year, his reinstatement should not have been directed
instead he should have been compensated for the aforesaid period. In the light of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1577
3 RP-92-2025
aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that present petition needs to be allowed.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1 on advance copy
submits that admittedly respondent No.1 was terminated by an illegal resolution of
the society in the year 2008, which was immediately challenged in service dispute
before the Assistant Registrar, which was decided in the year 2010 and the matter
was remanded back to the society, which was challenged by the society before the
Joint Registrar and vide order dated 30.04.2010, the matter was again remitted
back to the Assistant Registrar for fresh adjudication. The Assistant Registrar
vide order dated 08.06.2017 ordered reinstatement of petitioner with full back
wages.
6. It was further argued that against the said order the society had preferred
an appeal before the Joint Registrar again but this time Joint Registrar vide order
dated 17.04.2013 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the society and had
confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, whereby the respondent
No.1 was reinstated in service.
7. It was further argued that since the order of termination of respondent
No.1 vide Resolution dated 28.05.2004 was held to be bad, any appointment made
pursuant to it on his post was directly subjected to the final outcome of litigation
pending at the behest of respondent No.1 and now this Court in miscellaneous
petition under review has already directed for reinstatement of respondent No.1,
the appointment of the petitioner on the alleged vacant post had not created any
right in his favour and, thus he was not required to be made party in any of the
proceedings. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance in the matter of
Smt. Sandhya Bai Meher Vs. Kamlesh Bai Maina & others passed in W.P.
No.7957/2023 on 25.04.2024.
8. It was further argued that the order of reinstatement passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1577
4 RP-92-2025
Assistant Registrar, which was affirmed by the Joint Registrar in appeal was when
challenged before the Tribunal, were wrongly been set aside on some procedural
irregularities, which was not legally sustainable, therefore, this Court vide
impugned order had rightly set it aside and restored the order of reinstatement of
respondent No.1. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order herein is not
required to be recalled and reviewed.
9. Further it was further submitted that the scope of review under Order 47
Rule 01 read with Section 114 of CPC is very limited and for this contention he
has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Shri
Shuzabad Sabha Nai Sadak Lashkar Gwalior Through Adhyaksh Mahesh Arora
and others Vs. Suresh Arora @ Vasudev and others passed in review petition
No.1231/2024 vide order dated 08.01.2025.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. This Court time and again has reiterated the fact that the scope of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC are very limited. In
umpteen number of cases this Court as well as the Apex Court has held that a
review application would be maintainable only on (i) discovery of any new and
important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not
within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made:(ii) on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason and when
any of the eventualities as discussed above exists, then an order can be recalled
and reviewed but since none of the eventualities exists in the present matter,
according to this Court, the present review cannot be said to be maintainable, as
law with regard to accrual of any rights in favour of person who has been later on
appointed in place of a person whose termination is held to be illegal later on is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1577
5 RP-92-2025
very well settled.
12. In the matter of Smt. Pinki Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2016 3 MPLJ
58; MPLJ 58; it has been held that order passed by the competent authority in
appeal reinstating respondent No.1 cannot rendered otiose and redundant and be
converted into a mere waste paper simply by stating that the post from which
respondent No.1 had been removed has specifically been filled up by some other
person. The aforesaid judgment of this Court is based upon the Division Bench
decision of this Court in the matter of Jhunilal Yadav passed in review petition
No.380 of 2012 decided on 16.04.2014, which was arising out of writ petition
No.423/2001 and in another matter the Single Bench of this Court in the matter of
Jahar Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ petition No.12045/2013 decided
on 25.07.2013). In a very recent judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Govt. of
NCT of Delhi and another Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others reported in
(2023) 9 SCC 757, wherein in while referring to its another decision in the matter
o f Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. reported in (2013)8
SCC 337 ; had delineated on some of the grounds as to when the review will not
maintainable, which are reproduced herein as under:-
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications,
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import,
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the
case,
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face
of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice,
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error,
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for
review,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1577
6 RP-92-2025
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which
has to be fished out and searched,
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the
appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition, and
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing the main matter had been negatived."
13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that there is no
sum and substance in the present review petition, therefore, the same is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
