Mani Ram vs State Of H.P. & Others

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

This review petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant seeking review of order/judgment dated 08.07.2013, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2396 of 2013, titled as Mani Ram versus State of H.P. & others, (for short 'the impugned judgment'), whereby the writ petition was dismissed by observing that only minor penalty i.e. withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, was imposed upon the petitioner.

In the present petition, CMP (M) No. 658 of 2020, has been filed to condone the delay in filing the review petition. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is delay of six years, eight months and six days, in filing the present review petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and gone through it, he was under the impression that only a minor penalty was imposed upon him and he could not point out the mistake made in the impugned order/judgment due to the aforesaid wrong impression and it came to his knowledge only when he found some error in the fixation of his pension and other retiral dues. He further submits that this Court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition by observing that only minor penalty i.e. withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, was imposed upon the petitioner, whereas the major penalty i.e. withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, was imposed upon the petitioner. He prays that the delay in filing the review petition may be condoned, impugned judgment may be recalled and the writ petition may be decided on merits.

On the other hand, Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General submits that this review petition may be dismissed as the delay in filing the present appeal has not been properly explained. She further submits that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court as it is not known as to on which date, the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the judgment and it is unbelievable that he could not point out the mistake made in the impugned order/judgment due to the inadvertence. She prays that the application for condoning the delay in filing the review petition and consequently, the review petition may be dismissed.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record minutely.

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was negligent in approaching this Court within the stipulated period. It is also clear that this Court has not decided the writ petition, on merits and while dismissing the same, it has committed an error in using the words "withholding of one increment without cumulative effect" instead of words "withholding of one increment with cumulative effect". In fact, "withholding of one increment without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty and "withholding of one increment with cumulative effect" is a major penalty.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, CMP(M) No. 658 of 2020 is allowed and the delay of six years, eight months and six days, in filing the present review petition, is condoned. Consequently, the review petition is allowed and the impugned order/judgment dated 08.07.2013 is recalled. Writ petition No. 2396 of 2013 is restored to its original number and the same be listed for hearing. Review petition and the application for condoning the delay in filing the review petition are disposed of accordingly.