Sudesh Kumar Gargotra vs Vikram Srivastav & Ors.

The applicant, through the medium of instant application, has sought that LPASW No. 177/2009 may be listed along with CMP No. D-267/2009 including the review petition, which was allowed on 04.03.2011 by the Division Bench.

It is also urged that CMP No. D-267/2009 was required to be listed along with LPASW No. 177/2009, but the LPASW No. 177/2009 was listed on 30.07.2011 without CMP No. D-267/2009 and was dismissed later in absence of the review petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The applicant was dismissed from service in terms of order dated 20.03.1993. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 557/1993 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to avail opportunity of projecting his view point in the departmental enquiry. The order of the writ Court was assailed in LPA No. 31/1994 before the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits.

The learned writ Court, pursuant to the remand, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal of the applicant. Thereafter, the competent authority, pursuant to the order passed by the learned writ Court, reinstated the applicant with effect from March 22, 1993 treating the intervening period as on duty for all purposes. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority alive to the observations made by the learned writ Court that dismissal order of the applicant, impugned in writ petition No. 557/1993 was a non speaking order, on 12.10.1995 passed a detailed order supported by reasons and dismissed the applicant from service. The applicant, again impugned the said order before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in writ petition bearing No. 928/1996. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was directed to be placed before the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The Appellate Authority on 01.01.1998 converted the dismissal of the applicant from service to compulsory retirement from service. The compulsory retirement order dated 01.01.1998 was assailed by the applicant in SWP No. 850/2000 before the Single Judge of this Court. The petition was allowed on 11.10.2002, which was questioned in LPA(SW) No. 96/2003. The said LPA was allowed on 12.02.2008 and the writ Court order was set aside. The Division Bench was of the opinion that merely because the applicant was residing at Jammu would not confer jurisdiction on the court to entertain writ petition.

The applicant thereafter sought review of the judgment dated 12.02.2008 through the medium of review petition bearing Rev(LPA) No. 03/2008. The same was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2008 with a clarification that observations made in the order under review were made only for the purpose of question of jurisdiction and the finding recorded would not stand in the way of either of the parties in approaching the appropriate forum/court. The applicant thereafter, filed an application bearing No. AP(SWP) No. 4/2008 before the learned Single Judge for rehearing of COA(SW) No. 76-E/2003. The application was dismissed on 23.04.2009. On 22.05.2009, one more review petition, Rev(S) No. 10/2009 was filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 23.04.2009. The said review petition was also dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 31.10.2009. Thereafter, the applicant filed LPASW No. 177/2009 thereby assailing order dated 31.07.2009 passed in review petition (SWP) No 10/2009 in APSWP No. 4/2008 and CMP No 4/2008.

In LPASW No. 177/2009, an application bearing CMP No. D-267/2009 was filed by the applicant for placing on record copy of the review petition bearing No. 10/2009. The said application was disposed of in terms of order dated 04.03.2011. The order dated 04.03.2011 is extracted as under:

Thereafter, vide order dated 30.07.2011, the LPA(SW) bearing No. 177/2009 preferred by the applicant against order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 30.07.2011 passed in LPASW No. 177/2009 passed by the Division Bench through the medium of review petition bearing Review(LPA) No. 09/2011, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2013 with liberty to the appellant to challenge order granting him pension on any available grounds.

The grievance projected by the applicant in the present application is that LPASW No. 177/2009 may be listed along with CMP No. D-267/2009 including the review petition, which as per the petitioner, was allowed on 04.03.2011 by the Division Bench.

As is evident from the order dated 04.03.2011 as extracted above, only CMP No.D-267/2009 was allowed and documents were taken on record. It is not understandable as to how the applicant can assert that the review petition bearing No. 10/2009, which was preferred by the applicant, before the learned Single Judge, came to be allowed by the Division Bench on 04.03.2011.

As the LPASW No. 177/2009 was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2011 and review petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27.11.2013, the present application is not maintainable as both the orders i.e. 30.07.2011 and 27.11.2013 have attained finality.

In view of the above, the present applicant is devoid of merit, as such, the same is dismissed. SWP No. 1035/2014 shall be listed before the learned Single Judge on 17.08.2026.