WPSS/1423/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 4662 UK

                     Office Notes, reports,
SL.                 orders or proceedings or
          Date                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions and Registrar's
                     order with Signatures


      22.11.2021
                                                WPSS No. 1423 of 2018
                                                Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

The matter is listed today on a Review Application (MCC/2570/2021), which has been preferred by the State of Uttarakhand, seeking a review of the judgment; which was rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.07.2018, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner, seeking a prayer for considering, the tenure of services rendered by him in the work charge establishment for the purposes of pensionary benefits was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the impact of the judgment of Habib Khan's case as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.08.2017.

In fact, the review applicant, after having putting in appearance had filed the counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit, particularly a reference may be had to the contents of para 6 of the counter affidavit; where the respondent has made reference to a Gazette Notification No. 3/379/Ten-2005- 301(9)-2003 dated 28.03.2005, wherein it was contended, that the petitioner would not be entitled for the pensionary benefits in view of the implementation of New Contribution Pension Scheme.

In fact, this stand taken by the review applicant in the counter affidavit, it does not reflect from the judgment dated 16.07.2018, that the review applicant had ever pressed that ground taken in para 6 of the counter affidavit nor it is a ground which has been, even now taken in the review application that it was pressed by the petitioner, but the same was not considered by the Court.

Apart from the fact that the review application runs contrary to the stand which had been taken by him at the time when the matter was argued on 16.07.2018.

This review application has been preferred with delay of 577 days. As far as delay of 577 days are concerned, that is not being seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner; the same would stand allowed. The delay would stand condoned.

But for the reasons already assigned above, there is no apparent error, which has been committed by the Court in the judgment dated 16.07.2018, particularly, considering the fact taken by the review applicant as it has been pleaded in para 3 of the review application, that the petitioner was placed under work charged establishment and later on his services were regularized.

In that eventuality, I do not found any apparent legal error committed by the Court in rendering the judgment dated 16.07.2018, hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the review petition, the review application is accordingly rejected.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 22.11.2021 Mahinder/