High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125100-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 249 of 2024 Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh And 170 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Present review application has been filed with the prayer to review of the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Court on the following grounds: "A. Because the first and foremost requirement of entertaining the review application is that the order for which review is sought - (a) suffers from any error apparent on the face of record, and (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure to justice. On the aforesaid parameter, the order impugned dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court suffers from apprant error on the face of record. B. Because the Review Petition is maintainable only when there is patent error of facts or law being committed by the Hon'ble Writ Court against which the Review Petition is being instituted. The petitioners /applicants are feeling aggrieved to the order order impugned dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No.2108 of 2024 (Alok Kumar Singh and 170 others Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others) whereby had not considered the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.09.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11272/2023. C. Because by means of the order impugned dated 26.02.2024, the Hon'ble Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is an alternative remedy which is available to the petitioners/ applicants to ventilate their grievances before the learned Service Tribunal. It is material to state herein that earlier the grievance of the petitioners/applicants have been entertained by this Hon'ble Court where the Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged and this Hon'ble Court while enjoying the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had not directed the petitioners/applicants to avail the alternative remedy while by means of the order impugned dated 26.02.2024, the Hon'ble Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
Decision
D. Because earlier the petitioners/applicants had filed a writ petition bearing No. 17356/2022 and the Hon'ble Court had been pleased to disposed off the writ petition vide order dated 24.01.2023 and directed the Authority to take decision on the representation filed by the petitioners/applicants vide dated 11.08.2020 but infact, the representation has already been decided vide dated 21.12.2020 which has been not considered by the Hon'ble Writ Court hence the petitioners/applicants had preferred the Special Leave Petition (C) No.11272/2023 and the Hon'ble Apex Court had passed an order vide dated 25.09.2023 which is being quoted herein below:- "The order which is assailed in this petition directs the Additional Director General of Police (Establishment) Head Quarter Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners dated 11.08.2020. This order was passed by the High Court while disposing of a writ petition brought by the petitioners seeking reliefs, inter-alia, with regard to their grievances primarily on leave encashment and gratuity. Mr. Jayanth Nath, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the decision in that regard had already been taken on 21.12.2020 before passing of the impugned order by the High Court. It does not appear that the said fact was brought to the notice of the High Court when the judgment impugned was delivered on 24.01.2023. The petitioners ought to have brought to the notice of the High Court such decision of 21.12.2020. In such circumstances, we dismiss the petition CO with liberty to the petitioners to take such steps as may be permissible under the law as regards the fate or outcome of their representation. The present petition is dismissed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." E. Because the Hon'ble Writ Court while passing the order impugned dated 26.02.2024 had ignored the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 25.09.2023 which specifically directed the petitioners/applicants to take such step as may be permissible under the law; and in light of this direction, the petitioners/ applicants had filed a Civil Misc. Review Petition No.482/2023 which was disposed off vide order dated 05.12.2023 and subsequently the petitioners/ applicants had challenged the order dated 21.12.2020 by means of Writ-A No.2108 of 2024 whereby the order impugned has been passed. F. Because it is a settled principle of law that the alternative remedy is a matter of discretion and not jurisdiction furthermore the writ petition ought not to have dismiss on the ground of alternative remedy when the parties have filed the Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits; on the cause of action of the petitioners/ applicants in the earlier writ petition bearing No.17356 of 2022 where the entire pleadings have been exchanged between the parties on the directions of this Hon'ble Court and then the Hon'ble Writ Court had not insisted to avail the alternative remedy. G. Because by means of order impugned dated 26.02.2024, the Hon'ble Writ Court had not appreciated the fact that in the present writ petition merely the order dated 22.12.2020 have been additionally challenged and rest of the prayer(s) is almost same and on this issue, the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged on the direction on the Hon'ble High Court; therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy shall lead to failure to get speedy justice to the petitioners/applicants. H. Because the Hon'ble Writ Court had not appreciated the fact in its Para No.4 of the order impugned dated 26.02.2024 that the representation was not decided but infact, the representation has been decided vide order dated 22.12.2020 which was the impugned in Writ Petition No.2108 of 2024; such steps has been taken by the petitioners/applicants in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 25.09.2023 in SLP (C) No.11272/2023." 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has stressed his arguments that grievance of the applicants in the matter of gratuity and leave encashment may be considered by this Court instead of the Service Tribunal, which does not appear to be just and reasonable. 4. We have also gone through the grounds taken in the review application and we find that the applicants are seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is beyond the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C as the matter is being re-agitated on merits on the grounds that were already considered in the impugned order. 5. We find that this is nothing but an attempt to get re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. 6. Recently a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us V.K. Birla,J. was a member) in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 25 (DB), has considered the entire history and scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and explained the scope of review. 7. A reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court dated 30.5.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 293 of 2021 (Union Bank Of India vs. Additional District Magistrate, Meerut And 2 Others) and judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 260 of 2023 (Smt. Gopa Bahadur vs. State of U.P. and others). 8. In such view of the matter, we find that the grounds taken in the review application clearly indicates that the applicants are seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible in law. 9. Accordingly, the review application stands rejected. Order Date :- 2.8.2024 rkg