Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 119 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Natwarlal Trivedi

2014-01-24

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.SETH

body2014
Judgment This order will govern the disposal of Review Petition Nos.279/10, 280/10, 281/10, 282/10, 283/10, 409/10, 410/10, 200/11, 201/11, 205/11, 206/11, 207/11, 208/11, 209/11, 210/11, 211/11 and 233/11 since it is jointly stated by counsel for both the parties that these Review Petitions arise out of the identical orders passed in Writ Appeals in the similar fact situation. 2. For convenience, the facts have been noted from Review Petition No.279/2010. 3. This review petition is at the instance of the State seeking review of the order dated 12.1.2010 passed in W.A. No.417/2009, by which the Division Bench had dismissed the Writ Appeal of the State against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.5.2009 passed in W.P. No.2865/2009, taking note of the fact that the other Writ Appeal No.76/2009 in the matter of State of M.P. and others Vs. Devnarayan was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 11.5.2009. While passing the order dated 5.5.2009, the Writ Court had considered the petitioner's grievance that by order dated 14.5.1996 his services were regularized along with several other persons in the work charge and contingency fund service in the pay-scale of Rs.750-945/-, but without an opportunity of hearing the order dated 8.10.2004 was passed cancelling the order dated 14.5.1996. The Writ Court, accordingly, had disposed of the petition by quashing the order dated 8.10.2004 with liberty to the State to issue a show-cause notice and take appropriate decision and further directing that the respondent-employee would be entitled to the benefits accrued to him from the order dated 14.5.1996 till any fresh decision is taken by the State. The SLP No.13584/2010 preferred by the appellant against the order dated 12.1.2010 passed in W.A. No.417/2009 has been disposed of by order dated 2.8.2010 by giving liberty to file review. Hence this review petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner-State has submitted that before the decision of the Writ Appeal, the respondent was given an opportunity of hearing and fresh order dated 17/12/2008 was passed against the respondent but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. 5. Hence this review petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner-State has submitted that before the decision of the Writ Appeal, the respondent was given an opportunity of hearing and fresh order dated 17/12/2008 was passed against the respondent but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found that above submission of counsel for the petitioner will not affect the order dated 12/1/2010 passed by this Court because this Court has granted benefit of the order dated 14.5.1996 to the respondent only till the date of taking fresh decision by the State. Even otherwise, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that a bunch of similar review petitions have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by the detailed order dated 20.11.2013 passed in Review Petition No.97/2011 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Tarachand Bhawsar) and other connected review petitions. 6. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no ground for review is made out. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed.