WPSS/2149/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 1823 UK

             Office Notes,
            reports, orders
            or proceedings
No   Date    or directions                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
            and Registrar's
               order with
              Signatures
                              I.A. No.2 of 2023 (Delay Condonation Appl.)
                              MCC No.1 of 2023 (Review Application)
                              In
                              WPSS No.2149 of 2022
                              Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Ms. Sudha Tamta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner/review applicant.

Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Defects, as pointed out by the Registry, are overruled.

3. There is delay of 21 days in filing the review application.

4. Reasons furnished in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

5. This writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy vide judgment dated 15.11.2022, with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. This application (MCC No. 1 of 2023) has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 15.11.2022.

6. In the present writ petition, petitioner had challenged the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Government of Uttarakhand, whereby petitioner's claim for House Rent Allowance was rejected. Thus, a service dispute was raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, which was cognizable by the Tribunal established under U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976. In the review application, it is contended that learned Tribunal has refused to entertain the claim petition, as petitioner is a union of Forest Guards serving in Forest Department.

7. Perused the review application filed on behalf of petitioner as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof. I have also perused the judgment under review and also the order passed by learned Tribunal.

8. Perusal of the order passed by learned Tribunal on petitioner's claim petition reveals that liberty was given to the members of the petitioner union to approach the Tribunal individually or jointly with other interested person for redressal of their grievance.

9. It is settled position in law that review cannot be treated as an Appeal in disguise. An order, which is erroneous, can only be challenged by filing an Appeal. Review of an order can be made only when there is some error apparent on the face of record. It is not a case herein.

10. Learned counsel for the review applicant has also not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant invocation of review jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.07.2023 Arpan