Rajasthan High Court
Subhash Chand Sharma S/O Shri Madan Lal ... vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jp:43948-Db) on 19 October, 2024
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:43948-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 140/2024
Subhash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About
55 Years, R/o Plot No. 54, Nadi Ka Phatak, Patel Extension,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Labour
And Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Additional Commissioner (P And A), Head Quarter
Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anupam Agarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
19/10/2024
1. The present review petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for review order dated 27/08/2022. Learned
counsel has submitted that after dismissal of the present writ
petition it has come to his knowledge that wife of one of the co-
accused has been given benefit of family pension on the same
facts in the disciplinary proceedings which was separately going on
in the department. However, a different view was taken in the
case of present petitioner. In regard to the same, an RTI
[2024:RJ-JP:43948-DB] (2 of 3) [WRW-140/2024]
application was filed by the petitioner on 26/09/2022 after passing
of the present impugned order. Finally in the year 2024, during
the course of hearing on a second appeal preferred against
dismissal of RTI application, the representative of the respondent
admitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service while
another employee was granted compulsory retirement. Thus, the
petitioner was discriminated.
2. In this background, the present review application is filed
and reliance is placed upon judgment of Apex Court in Kamlesh
Verma vs. Mayavati reported in AIR 2013 SC 3301.
3. On consideration of the facts and prayer made in the review
application and on analysis of the same, it is revealed that review
application has been filed on account of subsequent developments
and includes information which were never considered by the
Court nor were there in the pleadings or arguments made the
petitioner. We are of the view that subsequent developments and
grounds cannot be considered at the stage of review.
4. This Court has considered the arguments. When the present
petition was filed, the arguments which is placed in the review
petition was relevant but the petitioner had chosen not to plead,
bring on record or array the necessary party in the erstwhile
petition. When said fact was neither argued before the learned
CAT nor considered by the CAT in their order and obviously, the
same was never the point for consideration before this Court, the,
review of the same cannot be made out and the same cannot be
taken as a mistake on the part of the Court. For these reasons
stated, the judgment of Apex Court is distinguished and the
review application is dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JP:43948-DB] (3 of 3) [WRW-140/2024]
5. In the light of above observations and considering that the
period of delay is of more than 645 days, in these facts and
circumstances, no appropriate explanation is given by the
petitioner qua the delay. It appears that instead of approaching
and taking remedy before the Appellate Court or before the Hon'
ble Apex Court, he has chosen to file present review on
subsequent facts, and that too after a delay of 645 days.
6. In the light of above, review petition is not only delayed but
is also devoid of any merit.
7. Consequently, the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ANIL SHARMA /8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
