AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is 666 days delay in preferring the present appeal. An application has been filed for condonation of delay. By the principal judgment,
rendered on December 3, 2005, a writ petition, filed by heirs of a deceased Government employee, was allowed, holding that, since the
Government employee was first appointed to the post of Fitter/Turner in respect of which post the retirement age was sixty years, though the
deceased employee, at the time of his retirement, became Meter Inspector, which post had a fixed retirement age of fifty five years, the
Government employee was entitled to serve till the age of sixty years. After this judgment and order was rendered, a review application was filed
by the applicants before us wherein it was contended that the decision rendered on the writ petition is contrary to a judgment rendered by the
Division Bench. In filing the review application, there was a delay of 534 days. The delay in preferring review application was condoned. The
review application itself remained pending for about one and half years before the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the review
as well as the review application were decided. While rejecting the review application, the Court felt that, if the principal order dated December 3,
2005 was against settled position of law/an appeal ought to have had been preferred and review lies only where there is apparent error of facts or
law in the judgment. The review Court felt that, since the settled law was not produced before the Judge, who dealt with the writ petition originally,
it cannot be said that his Lordship committed an error of law, which can be treated as an error of law apparent on the face of record.
The judgment of the Division Bench, upon which the applicant before us wanted to rely before the review Court, makes it clear that, if a person
walks up the ladder and does not remain in an inferior post at the time of his superannuation, he cannot seek to equate himself with a person
superannuating while holding the inferior past. In view of the pronouncement of the Division Bench, one situation will prevail, but if the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge is made effective, a diagonally opposite situation will prevail. Law courts, would loath to render judgments
pronouncing opposite rights of same or similar class of people.
The other question that requires to be gone in is whether by reason of failure on the part of a lawyer to bring to the notice of a Judge a settled
law and as a result, being ignorant thereof, a pronouncement is made contrary to such settled law, can it be said that there is no error of law
apparent on the face of record?
We, therefore, feel that the present appeal requires consideration. Accordingly, we allow the application for condonation of delay, the same
having been filed within a reasonable time from the date of dismissal of the review application.
Let no further steps be taken in the contempt application.
On the prayer of learned Counsel for the Respondents, we direct that this appeal be listed next week.