WPSS/2980/2017
2022 Latest Caselaw 258 UK

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

                                      WPSS No.2980 of 2017
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

The writ petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide it's the judgment of 29.11.2017, as a consequence of the decision taken on 29.11.2017, a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents for paying the minimum of pay scale for the post of sweeper, to the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, but however para 3 of the judgment observes that the matter was then represented by the State through the Standing Counsel, and the Standing Counsel raised no objection to the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition. In that eventuality, the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, would amount to be a consenting order.

The review has been preferred with the delay condonation, as it is reported that there is 209 days of delay. Since the petitioner counsel was granted time to file objection to the delay condonation and the objection has not yet been filed, the delay which has chanced in filing the review application, would stand condoned.

But however, considering the review application itself on its own merits, though the counsel for the review applicant intended to address the Court on the merits of the review application, which also touches the merits of the case afresh itself when it was being considered by the Coordinate Bench on 29.11.2017, in fact he was attempting to travel beyond the case, which was even argued by the counsel for the review applicant, before the Coordinate Bench on 29.11.2017, since the order sought to be reviewed is being the consenting order, it will not fall to be within the ambit of Section 114 to be read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. because there is no apparent error on the face of the record of the judgment.

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the review petition. The Review Application No.974 of 2018, is dismissed without prejudice to the right available to the review applicant for resorting to the appropriate recourse available to him in accordance with law.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 16.02.2022 Arti