Vinay Kumar Bajpai vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Affidavits have been exchanged in this review application between the parties.

Sri Yogesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the Government Order dated 9th October, 2007, which was very much in existence at the time of the delivery of the judgment dated 02.04.2010, the Petitioner was entitled to similar benefits extended to the other employees, which aspect could not be noticed while the judgment was finally delivered on 02.04.2010. He submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, the judgment deserves to be reviewed and the Petitioner''s claim deserves to be allowed for consideration of absorption/regular appointment in terms of the said Government Order dated 9th October, 2010. Sri Agrawal submits that the benefits which have been extended under the said Government Order are to similarly situated employees, who are junior to the Petitioner and therefore such benefits if denied to the Petitioner, the same would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the said Government Order 9th October, 2007, it is evident that the same is limited to the extent of applicability in respect of such cases in which petitions have been filed and the names of the Petitioners have also been referred to therein. Every clause of the said letter/Government Order clearly indicates that it was meant to apply in respect of such Petitioners whose writ petitions have been referred to in the opening paragraph of the said Government Order.

In view of this, the contention raised by Sri Agrawal that Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be violated and the judgment dated 02.04.2010 deserves to be reviewed cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the said judgment and the Government Order are not for general application. Even otherwise the orders are interim in nature and therefore are not binding precedents. No reasons are given for such orders.

Accordingly, the review application is misconceived and is hereby rejected.