AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kh. Nobin Singh, J
[1] Heard Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review petitioners and Shri Ng. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1.
[2] The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioners praying for reviewing the judgment and order dated 20/06/2017 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.161 of 2017. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment and order dated 20/6/2019 read as under:-
"[5] It is on record that the petitioner was initially appointed as the Senior Scientific Assistant on contract basis vide order dated 09-3-1999 followed by an order dated 01-04-2003 appointing her as the Senior Scientific Assistant, against one of the posts created for it, on the basis of the recommendation of a Screening Committee. When the petitioner was not paid her salary in the scale of pay mentioned in her appointment order, she submitted a representation dated 20-10-2006 to the Chairman of the Board requesting for payment of due salaries and without considering her representation, it so happened that the Member Secretary of the Board issued an Office Memorandum dated 13-11-2006 informing all the casual/ contract employees including the petitioner to submit a prescribed format titled "Standard Agreement Format for Engagement on Contract Basis". The petitioner raised an objection thereto vide her representation dated 16-11-2006 on the ground that she had already been appointed on regular basis, to which the Chairman of the Board issued a show cause notice dated 06-12-2006 directing the petitioner to submit the said duly signed prescribed format, failing which necessary disciplinary actions be taken against her. Despite a representation dated 11-12-2006 being submitted by her, she approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No.1138 of 2006 wherein the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents not to take any disciplinary action and not to subject her to execute the contract agreement until further orders. Instead of complying with the court's order, the Chairman of the Board issued a backdated order dated 13-12-2006 terminating the service of the petitioner with immediate effect, which came to be challenged by her in WP (C) No.1186 of 2006. Both the writ petitions being WP (C) No.1138 of 2006 and 1186 of 2006 were dismissed vide a common judgment and order dated 23-05-2007 passed by the Hon'ble High Court with the direction that the petitioner be allowed to serve as the Senior Scientific Assistant until the post was filled up on regular basis. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, two writ appeals being WA No.43 and 44 of 2007 came to be preferred which were disposed on 27-08-2008 as infructuous, when the Hon'ble Court was informed that the petitioner had been allowed to resume duty on 07-06-2008, with the direction that the petitioner be paid her back wages for the period from 13-12-2006 to 24-03-2008 within two weeks therefrom. When the petitioner was not paid her back wages as directed, she was compelled to file a contempt petition wherein the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to issue notice but instead of complying with the court's order, the Member Secretary of the Board issued an order dated 29-01-2009 to the effect that her service should stand discontinued with effect from the next day. This order dated 29-01-2009 was challenged in a writ petition being WP (C) No.121 of 2009 wherein an interim order was passed on 27-02-2009 which was continued from time to time till 26-10-2016 when the said order dated 27-02-2009 was directed to be continued until further order. While the said WP(C) No.121 of 2009 was pending for adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court, the Member Secretary of the Board issued an order dated 11-06-2016 regularising the services of as many as 35 contract employees excluding the petitioner.
[6] From the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, the animosity or the tussle between the petitioner and the Board began to emerge from the day when she claimed that she had been appointed on regular basis vide order dated 01-04-2003 issued by the Chairman of the Board. The question as to whether the petitioner had been appointed on regular basis vide order dated 01-04-2003 or not is not the subject-matter in issue in the present case and therefore, it may not be appropriate for this court to make any observation in respect thereof. But on perusal of the said order dated 01-04-2003, it is seen that it does not seem to be a mere order extending the contract service of the petitioner but it does seem to be something more than that for the reason that the same was issued on the basis of the recommendation of a Screening Committee against one of the posts created as Senior Scientific Assistants and that too, without specifying any period of time therein, i.e., until further order. The said animosity went on and on two occasions ie., on 13-12-2006 and 29-01-2009, attempts were made by the Board for terminating the contract service of the petitioner but in vain on account of the timely interference by the Hon'ble High Court. It may be noted that the Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the said writ appeals, found vide its judgment and order dated 27-08-2008 that the said order dated 13-12-2006 was issued by the Board backdated to flout deliberately the court's order. But the Hon'ble High Court did not take any action against the two officers - one, the Member Secretary and two, the Superintending Engineer of the Board on their unconditional apology being tendered by them. As regards the issue involved herein, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as many as 35 contract employees have been regularized by the Board but the petitioner has been denied of such a benefit although she is similarly situated with them. The reason as to why the petitioner has been discriminated by the Board, is not available on record, as the Board has chosen not to contest the writ petition by filing an affidavit nor does it appear in court. But the fact that 35 contract employees have been regularized by the Board, is evident from the order dated 17-11-2016 issued by the Member Secretary of the Board. The non-regularisation of the petitioner's contract service by the Board is highly unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is a blatant victimization to the petitioner. The Board being an institution, is expected to act fairly and reasonably and the said animosity cannot be a ground for denial of such similar benefit to the petitioner. One of the reasons for leaving the petitioner behind from being considered for regularization, appears to be that her approaches to the Hon'ble High Court quite often has annoyed the Board, as a result thereof the petitioner has been singled out without any valid & cogent reason and for other reasons best known to them. But it must be understood by the Board that every person has a right to approach the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of a writ petition for redressal of his grievances and in particular, for the enforcement of his legal right or fundamental rights and it is only for the Hon'ble High Court either to allow or dismiss the same depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner cannot be panelized, for no fault of her, by the erroneous thinking of the Board that it can do anything, at its whims and fancies, without following the rule of law. It is a part of the system prevailing in the country which has to work in accordance with law."
[3] Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 20/06/2017, the instant review petition has been filed on the inter-alia ground that the notices issued by this Court in the writ petition were received by Shri Nabachandra (Naba), Stenographer Grade-II of Manipur Pollution Control Board on 24/03/2017 but the same were not entered in the receipt book nor were they placed before the review petitioners. Since the said notices were not placed before the review petitioners, they could not contest the writ petition by filing their counter affidavits. In addition to that, it has been contended that a favourable order has been obtained by the respondent No.1 by concealing the fact of her non-attendance to the office w.e.f. 01-03-2009 till the date of filing the review petition.
[4] An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.1 stating that sufficient opportunities were given to the review petitioners before disposal of the writ petition. As per the report submitted by the Department of Posts, 3 (three) postal articles containing the said notices, were received on 07/03/2017 by the office of the Pollution Control Board.
The contention of the review petitioners that the said notices were not entered in the service book nor were they placed before the review petitioners, is unbelievable for the reason that as many as 13 (thirteen) postal articles including the said 3 (three) notices, were received by Shri Nabachandra (Naba) on 24/03/2017. When all the 10 (ten) articles were placed before the review petitioners, only 3 (three) articles containing the said three notices were not placed before them and therefore, the contention of the review petitioners is untenable. The respondent No.1/ writ petitioner continued to attend her office regularly after 01/03/2009 but she was not allowed to put her signature in the attendance register. Her request to the Member Secretary, MPCB for allowing her to put her signature in the attendance register had fallen on their deaf ears, as a result she was constrained to file application being MC(WP(C)) No.87 of 2009 for allowing her to put her signature on the attendance register. There is no sufficient ground for reviewing the judgment and order passed by this Court.
[5] During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by Shri Ng. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that since there is no any ground for filing the review petition, the same is not maintainable for which he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Versus Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners that the review petition can be allowed in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran nigam Ltd. through Mng. Director & Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh (D) through LRs., (2006) 13 SCC 26.
[6] So far as the ground that the respondent No.1 did not attend the office with effect from 01-03-2009 is concerned, it is not a ground for review at all but it is something to do with the merits of the case and moreover, the same has been dealt with earlier by this Court, as is evident from the materials on record in respect of the earlier writ petitions and writ appeals which have already been disposed of.
[7] In Kamlesh Verma case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the issue as to whether the review petitioner therein has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order and satisfies the criteria for reviewing the same in review jurisdiction, had considered the scope of the review jurisdiction. After referring to its earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. case (supra), the respondent who was an employee of the appellants, was dismissed from the service and a statutory appeal preferred by him, was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal from the service, a writ petition was filed by him and at the time when it was listed for admission, the learned Addl. Advocate General accepted notice purportedly on behalf of the State and the appellants. But he did not bring to the notice of the appellants about the receipt of the notice. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the matter be remanded to the authority for fresh decision. A review petition was filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground that the order of dismissal was passed without the observance of principles of natural justice. The appeal preferred by the appellants was allowed setting aside the orders passed in writ petition and the review petition.
[8] There can be no dispute that the principles as regards the maintainability of review petition, have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated in the preceding paragraphs. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not examine the review jurisdiction and decided the matter on facts. The facts of that case are not identical to that of the present case. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. case, the appellants were not aware of the notice issued by the Court for the reason that the learned Addl. Advocate General accepted notice on their behalf but he did not inform the appellants and moreover, the learned addl. Advocate General was not authorized by them to accept the notice. In the present case, the notices were issued by this Court to the petitioners which were duly received by a stenographer who is working there. It may be noted that in addition to the three postal articles containing this Court's notices, the said stenographer received 10 more postal articles on the same. This shows that the stenographer was authorized by the petitioners to receive the postal articles or the petitioners did not raise any objection to such postal articles being received by him. Therefore, it is an undeniable fact that the notices were received by the office of the review petitioners. In respect of such statutory body/ institution namely the Manipur Pollution Control Board, it is not necessary that such postal articles should be handed over to the officer concerned only and it is sufficient, if they are received by the staff of the institution. The stand of the review petitioners is that the said notices received by the stenographer were not placed before the review petitioners. It is admitted by the petitioners that the notices were delivered to the office of the petitioners on 24-03-2017 and the writ petition was allowed on 20-06-2017. It is hard to believe that the Stenographer did not bring to the notice of the review petitioners about this Court's notice during the period of about three months, when he had brought to their notice the said ten other postal articles. If it is really correct, it is a serious lapse on his part which will entail a disciplinary proceeding against him. Although a show cause was issued to the stenographer, his reply that the relevant file might have been misplaced, was accepted and he was simply warned that he should not commit such act in future. No proceeding disciplinary was continued further and an additional affidavit was filed thereafter. Keeping in mind the circumstances relating to the respondent No.1 commencing from the day when she was appointed as Senior Scientific Assistant, the contention of the review petitioners is untenable. The grounds on which the review petition has been filed, do not fall in any of the grounds as stipulated by the statute and as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, there is no any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petitioner No.1 being an institution and the other review petitioners who are representing it, ought to act fairly and reasonably, failing which its action will amount to violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But from the materials on record in the writ petitions filed earlier by the respondent No.1, it is seen that the review petitioner No.1 made several attempts to harass her and to see that she was/ is not in its office with the ultimate result that when almost all the contract employee of the review petitioner No.1 were regularized vide order dated 17-11-2016, only the respondent No.1 was singled out and that is the reason why the review petitioner No.1 was directed by this Court to ensure that she is also regularized in the same manner as has been done in respect of the similarly situated contract employees. It is high time for the review petitioner No.1 to be introspect in its approach and in other words, it ought to restrain itself from being egoistic in its approach.
[9] For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the review petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.