Madras High Court
P.Silas Vijayakumar vs Divisional Finance Manager on 6 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of 2024
P.Silas Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Divisional Finance Manager,
Southern Railway,
Madurai-16.
2.Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway,
Madurai-16.
3.State Bank of India CPPC,
Virugampakkam,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition for condone the delay of 18 days in filing the above
review application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, against the order
dated 06.04.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.31172 of 2005 in W.P.M.P.S.R.No.
95487 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Silas Vijayakumar
Party in person
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of 2024
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The petitioner appears in person. He seeks review of the order made
in W.P.M.P.S.R.No.95487 of 2015. The petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.31172 of 2005 seeking fixation of pay on par with one of his juniors
one K.Natarajan, who according to him, was drawing a higher scale of pay.
A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 06.09.2007 directed the
respondent railways to re-fix the salary of the petitioner on par with the
pay of his immediate junior, Natarajan. This was done by the railways and
the petitioner was informed of the same on 01.04.2009. Though the order
dated 06.09.2007 was appealed against, the same was confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil)Nos.5517 and 5518 of 2009.
Complaining that the order of the Division Bench made in W.P.No.31172 of
2005 was not complied with in full, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition
in Cont P.(MD)No.680 of 2008, a Division Bench of this Court went into the
issue and concluded that the order made in W.P.No.31172 of 2005 has
been substantially complied with and on the said finding, the contempt
proceedings closed. Thereafter the petitioner again filed an application in
W.P.M.P.S.No.No.95487 of 2015 seeking the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,
the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
make the respondent liable to be dealt with in accordance with
law for deliberately acted against relevant rules and disobeying
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of 2024
the authority of High Court and drastic action against officials,
misled the Hon'ble Court by giving false evidence for 40 years,
wasted precious time and thus render justice.”
2. This petition was again placed before a Division Bench of this
Court for considering its maintainability. The Division Bench, by its order
dated 06.04.2016, concluded that the prayer sought for cannot be granted
and there was no necessity to re-visit the earlier orders passed in the case
on hand. The petitioner now seeks review of this order, apart from seeking
various other reliefs.
3. We have perused the orders passed by this Court on various
earlier occasions. We find that the grievance of the petitioner has been
acceded to by this Court in W.P.No.31172 of 2005. It is also seen that
Natarajan, the junior, retired long after the petitioner. The re-fixation done
was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Cont P(MD)No.680 of
2008, an application seeking to punish the respondents for having
disobeyed the orders of the Division Bench in W.P.No.31172 of 2005 was
also dismissed at the SR stage as early as on 06.04.2016 and almost after
a lapse of nearly eight years, the petitioner has come up with instant
review petition seeking review of the earlier order.
4. We do not see any ground to entertain the review. The review
petition does not disclose any grounds to enable us to review the earlier
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of 2024
orders passed by this court. Moreover, W.P.M.P.S.R.No.95487 of 2015 was
rejected as not maintainable. Even assuming the said petition is
entertained, the claim of the petitioner to re-visit the fixation of the salary
cannot be done, unless he questions the order in the contempt petition.
5. Hence, we find that this Review Petition is not maintainable and
the same is rejected in the SR stage itself. No costs.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
06.09.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
Sml
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.42111 of
06.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
