AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant review application has been filed by the review applicants who were the respondents in OA No. 1217 of 2019 seeking review of the order and judgment dated 07.09.2026 passed in the said OA by this Tribunal by way of which the said OA was disposed of and the respondents were directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-each to the applicants referring to the judgement and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ-A.No.-11282/2018 Ramesh Chandra Bari and 13 others vs. Union of India and others decided on 31.01.2025. The operative portion of the order passed in the above OA is quoted herein below:
“8.Judgment and order passed in the writ petition was challenged by the casual laborers themselves before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Special Leave Petition (C) No 22533 of 2025 and it was decided to enhance the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. The applicants herein have also participated in the screening test conducted in the year 2008. In the result published in the year 2010, they were declared unsuitable which is attributed to their over age. Similarly situated casual labours who had challenged the screening result filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was decided as disclosed hereinabove only granting a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs but prayer for the appointment was refused on the ground that all the petitioners have crossed the age of superannuation. If the age of the applicants shown in the OA is taken into consideration, certainly all the applicants have crossed the age of superannuation as on date. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that present applicants’ prayer can also be allowed in terms of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the writ petition No. 11282 of 2018 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No 22533 of 2025. Applicants’ prayer on the strength of judgement passed by this Bench in bunch of O.A.s with leading O.A. No.31/2019 (Jagdish & others) cannot be rejected as applicants are entitled to get relief in light of Ramesh Chandra Bari & others (supra) case.
9.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid referred judgments and the competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lacs only) each to the applicants. The amount shall be remitted directly into the applicants’ accounts within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The bank particulars of the applicants shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the applicants to the respondents within ten days from the date of this order. If the amount is not deposited within the said period, it shall attract interest at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum until the realization of the amount.
10.All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.”
The applicants in the original application were ex-casual labourers who were declared unsuitable in the screening test for being overaged and they had sought age relaxation and consequential benefits as relief in the O.A. A reference was made to the judgement and order passed in Ramesh Chandra Bari (supra) case. After hearing the matter at length, the case was reserved. The judgment in this regard was pronounced on 07.09.2026 after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the contesting parties i.e., the counsel for the applicants and the counsel for the respondents and after carefully perusing the available records. The OA was disposed of with directions as quoted above.
It is pertinent to mention that a careful perusal of the instant review application reveals that the review applicants who were respondents in the OA have filed this application replicating the facts and circumstances of the case which were already discussed in the judgment. Almost entire pleadings and grounds which were taken and relied upon by the respondents’ department in the counter affidavit filed in the original application, have been reiterated. It is needless to mention that while reserving the order and preparing the judgment, each and every fact and pleading as was adduced by the contesting parties and all the documents relied upon and placed on record by the contesting parties were taken into consideration. And now, by way of the instant review application, the review applicants / respondents of the OA have once again stressed upon the same facts and circumstances as well as averments which were argued upon at the time of hearing of the case. No new fact has emerged nor has anything worth consideration been brought on record by them which may alter the decision of the Tribunal given in the subject OA. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to dismiss the instant review application as being devoid of merits. It is further needless to record that in case the respondents of the OA are dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, it was well within their right to have approached the higher judicial forum instead of filing this misconceived review application.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant review application no.37 of 2026 is dismissed as being devoid of merits. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.