AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J
This review petition has been preferred after a delay of 435 days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved, however, the
reasons given therein are that the petitioners were collecting the documents which could not be collected in time and have recently got copy of the
judgment dated 23.02.2017 and therefore they have now filed the review petition.
This court finds that the judgment which the petitioners seek to review is dated 11.01.2016 and the grounds therefore raised in the application under
Section 5 are wholly flimsy as a judgment of 2017 was not existing at the time when the present judgment in the review was passed. That apart, the
court has noted as under:
“Petitioners have not filed seniority list to claim benefit of stepping up which otherwise remains the basis for it. Learned counsel was asked as to
whether petitioner is having the seniority list so as to be filed. He insisted for assessment of seniority by this court after considering the order of
appointment of the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Goswami. The court was even incline to grant time to learned counsel for filing of the seniority list but
learned counsel refused to file copy of the seniority list. In view of above, I find that the claim has been made based on the seniority without filing the
seniority list.â€
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake was on the part of the counsel who was not able to understand the query of the court.
Seniority lists were existing at that time and that comparative seniority list was not there. However, this court finds that even after 11.01.2016 for
more than 435 days, the petitioner has kept silence. If there was seniority list already existing, the application could have beenÂ
moved immediately thereafter seeking a review and also placing the seniority list on record.
The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner aretherefore, without any basis and are liable to be rejected.
Taking into consideration the documents which are on record and as there was no seniority list available with the court, no case for review is made
out.
The review petition is therefore dismissed, on the ground of gross delay and latches as well as on merits.