WRIT PETITION 21961 OF 2020 on 3 December 2004

1) The present Review application came to be filed, under Section 114 read with 17 Rule (1) of C.P.C., seeking Review of the Order, dated 02.11.2021, wherein, this Court passed the following Order:

“9. As the issue is identical to the one dealt with in W.P.No.2812 of 2021, relying upon and adopting the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 14.10.2020, passed in O.A.No.1166 of 2014, Writ Petition No.21961 of 2020 is allowed.

10. Accordingly, the judgment and order, dated 31.01.2020, passed in O.A.No.560 of 2014 by the learned Tribunal, is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents in similar terms to that of O.A.No.1166 of 2014 contained in order dated 14.10.2020, which is reproduced herein:

“Thus, keeping the above in view, we set aside the termination of the applicants w.e.f. 03.12.2004 being illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to consider granting relief to the applicants as under:

(i) Respondents shall work out salary/wages for the period 03.12.2004 till 04.03.2011, to be paid to the applicants as if they were directly working for the respondents, in consonance with the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 203/2003 and then deduct the amount paid to the applicants through the service contractor for the said period. The difference amount has to be thus arrived at. period 03.12.2004 till 04.03.2011, to be paid to the applicants as if they were directly working for the respondents, in consonance with the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 203/2003 and then deduct the amount paid to the applicants through the service contractor for the said period. The difference amount has to be thus arrived at.

(ii) Applicants shall be granted Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- along with the relevant scale for which they would be eligible as on 01.01.2006 as per 6th CPC and based on the same, their scale of pay has to be fixed over the years. Arrears accordingly have to be arrived at. along with the relevant scale for which they would be eligible as on 01.01.2006 as per 6th CPC and based on the same, their scale of pay has to be fixed over the years. Arrears accordingly have to be arrived at.

(iii) The amount of arrears so worked out as at (i) and (ii) above, shall be restricted to be paid for a period of three years from the date of filing of this OA in terms of para 5 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh in Civil Appeal Nos. 5151-5152 of 2008. above, shall be restricted to be paid for a period of three years from the date of filing of this OA in terms of para 5 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh in Civil Appeal Nos. 5151-5152 of 2008.

(iv) Time calendared to implement to the order is three months from the date of receipt of this order. (v) With the above directions, the OA is partly allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. months from the date of receipt of this order. (v) With the above directions, the OA is partly allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.

11. In view of prayer made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the Court is inclined to grant three months time from today for complying with the order passed in W.P.No.2812 of 2021 and W.P.No.21961 of 2020.” Solicitor General, the Court is inclined to grant three months time from today for complying with the order passed in W.P.No.2812 of 2021 and W.P.No.21961 of 2020.”

2) Sri. N. Vijay, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would submit that, the relief granted in Clause (ii) be extended to submit that, the relief granted in Clause (ii) be extended to Clause (i) as well. In other words, his argument appears to be that, consequential reliefs after the expiry of three years as fixed in Clause (iii) may be directed to be given to the Petitioners.

3) The same is opposed by Ms. T. Alekhya, Advocate, representing Sri. N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General, stating that, if the request of the Petitioners is accepted, the same would be beyond the scope of the order in O.A. and the Order passed in the Writ Petition. According to her oral instructions, the Order of the Division Bench of this Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Order has been complied with in toto.

4) As seen from the argument advanced, the request of the Petitioners appears to be that, benefit given in Clause (ii) be extended to Clause (i) also and the consequential benefits after the expiry of three years as fixed in Clause (iii). We feel that if such a relief is granted, it would be contrary to the Order’s passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh in Civil Appeal Nos. 5151-5152 of 2008, which was relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court while passing the Order impugned in this Review. Further, if the relief as sought for is granted, it would change the nature of the Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. and by the High Court. In view of the representation made that the Order passed by the Division Bench has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, coupled with the circumstances referred to above, we hold that reviewing the Order impugned does not arise.

5) Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

6) As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

_______________________________

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

______________________________

JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMARAND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

REVIEW I.A. NO. 1 OF 2022

IN

W.P. No. 21961 OF 2020

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

Dt. 11.11.2022 SM.