WRIT PETITION 26826 of 2005 on 11 November 2013

ORDER:

1. The third respondent in the main writ petition filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. No.26826 of 2005, whereby this Court had directed the third respondent to implement the State pay scales to the non-teaching technical staff working in the third respondent-college and further directed to implement the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent in the review petition submits that though this court passed the order, the Management of the third respondent college has filed the present review petition instead of complying with the order or filing an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge. It is submitted that under the guise of the pendency of the review petition the orders passed by this Court are not complied with.

3. The grounds stated for reviewing the order is that the third respondent-college is paying salaries to the second respondent as per the revised pay scales as applicable to the Lab Technician(s). It is also stated that the scales fixed by the Government were already extended to the non-teaching staff. The other grounds which are raised with regard to the autonomy in the administration of a private un-aided institution were already raised before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has considered the same and passed the order which is sought to be reviewed by way of this writ petition. Apart from the statement that the salaries are extended as fixed by the State Government, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. The review petition is filed with flimsy grounds and no concrete ground is raised in the review petition, which requires consideration on merits. The review petition appears to be an attempt of the 3[rd] respondent college to dodge the implementation of the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others[1]and Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others[2], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for the scope of review.

1 (1979) 4 Supreme Court cases 389

2 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2095

5. Evidently, the review petition could not be entertained as there is no error apparent from the face of the order passed by this Court on 11.11.2013.

6. Considering the same, the review petition is dismissed without costs.

___________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Date:18.07.2024 KGM

KGM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

Review petition IA.No.2 of 2014 (WPMP)No.16653 of 2014

IN

WRIT PETITION No.26826 of 2005

Date 18.07.2024