AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A Division Bench of this Court on 11.3.2008 allowed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1153/2006 preferred by the petitioner and issued following directions:-
"In fact two years of experience was enough as per the rule as he is matriculate, therefore, the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner - appellant on the post of LDC from the date when his juniors were absorbed on the post of LDC within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal accordingly stands allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs."
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7383/2009. The said Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17.7.2009 by passing the order Annexure-R/1. The order Annexure-R/1 reads as under:- "Delay condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there are certain factual errors in the order of Division Bench which have a material bearing on the facts of the case and that the petitioner would move an application for review. The SLP is accordingly dismissed. Liberty as prayed for."
Mr. Saurabh Saraswat the learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that after the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the State has preferred D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 218/2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that from the last six years, review petition preferred by the State is lying in Defect Section and the State has not bothered to cure defects.
It seems that the State is not interested to pursue the review petition and as it has taken no active steps for getting the same listed before the Division Bench. The defects pointed out by the Registry have not been removed, hence, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to strictly comply with the order dated 11.3.2008 (Annexure-5) passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
By filing review in the registry in year 2011, by not removing the defects in the last six years, respondents have denied fruits of well earned litigation to the petitioner. It will be pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed SBCWP No.3971/1993 in this Court and the said writ petition by learned Single Judge was decided against the petitioner on 23.3.2006.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1153/2006 and same was allowed by the Division Bench on 3.11.2008. The Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State was dismissed on 17.7.2009. In the writ petition, the petitioner had made a grievance that he became eligible for absorption as LDC on 24.7.1990. The grievance of the petitioner from the last twenty-seven years has not been redressed by the respondents. He is in the corridors of the court from the last twenty-four years. To frustrate the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have resorted to dilatory tactics. Hence, for non-compliance of the order dated 11.3.2008, cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon the respondent State.