State of U.P. and three others v. Rajendra Bahadur Singh and four others), therefore, this Civil Misc. Review

1. Heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This has been admitted at the bar that the identical controversy has been decided by this bench in Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 154 of 2025(State of U.P. and three others vs. Rajendra Bahadur Singh and four others), therefore, this Civil Misc. Review Application Defective is being decided as follows:- (I.A. No. 1 of 2025)

3. Sri Nishant Shukla, has submitted that the delay of 28 days is unintentional and bonafide and while filing the review the review application, certain process and procedure was adopted for which the delay occurred, therefore, submission is that the same may be condoned.

4. Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection, if the delay is condoned.

5. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

6. Delay is condoned. (Order on Review Application) 2 CMRAD No. 148 of 2025

7. This is a review application against the judgment and order dated

02.07.2025 passed in the Special Appeal Defective No. 140/2025 (State of U.P. and three others vs. Uma Shankar Singh) which reads as under : "Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025

1. An application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit has been filed along-with the appeal.

2. Reasons in detail have been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application to which there is no objection.

3. In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue, as has been raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 191 of 2024(State of U.P. Thru. Princ. Secry. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Versus Jag Prasad Chaubey) rendered on 06.09.2024, whereby, intra court appeal of similar nature has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. In these circumstances, for the same very reasons, the present intra court appeal filed under chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, deserves to be dismissed.

6. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed."

8. At the very outset Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 45369 / 2025 (State of U.P. & others vs. Jag Prasad Chaubey) which reads as under : "Delay condoned.

2. Having considered the matters in depth, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order(s) impugned.

3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to persuade us on the ground that, in some similar matters, notice has been issued, but in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the present cases, and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents herein were selected on a regular basis under the applicable Rules, though not finally regularized and have continued in service, and further that the respondents are already being paid pension and are now advanced in age, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. 4. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. 5. However, we leave the question of law open, as it is already under consideration in two separate batch cases i.e., Writ Petition (Civil)No.1458/2020 (Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Department Non-Gazetted Employee Association (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. The Chief Secretary & Ors. and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25891 of 2017 (Prem Babu & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.)

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 3 CMRAD No. 148 of 2025

9. Sri Somvanshi has stated that since the Special Appeal of the State was dismissed on 2.7.2025 in the light of the order dated 6.9.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 191/2024 (supra) and the special appeal of the State challenging the same order i.e. order dated 6.9.2024 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of order dated 27.10.2025, therefore, this review petition has lost its efficacy.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Apex Court we do not find any infirmity or any error apparent in the order dated 2.7.2025, the order under review, therefore, this review application is liable to be dismissed being misconceived.

11. It is settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that the scope of the review is very limited and unless & until an apparent error is pointed out on the judgment in question or any apparent illegality has been made, the order in question may not be reviewed as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Thungabhadra Industries Limited vs. Governor of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1980) 2 SCC 167 and in the case of Lily Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 that review cannot be an appeal in disguise to re-hear the matter. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Subhash vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537 as well as Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095 and Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banki (Smt.) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78.

12. In the instant case, since there is no apparent error or illegality in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2025, therefore, this review application is dismissed in limine.

13. However, it is always open for the the review-applicant / petitioner / State to take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate court of law. December 12, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This has been admitted at the bar that the identical controversy has been decided by this bench in Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 154 of 2025(State of U.P. and three others vs. Rajendra Bahadur Singh and four others), therefore, this Civil Misc. Review Application Defective is being decided as follows:- (I.A. No. 1 of 2025)

3. Sri Nishant Shukla, has submitted that the delay of 28 days is unintentional and bonafide and while filing the review the review application, certain process and procedure was adopted for which the delay occurred, therefore, submission is that the same may be condoned.

4. Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection, if the delay is condoned.

5. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

6. Delay is condoned. (Order on Review Application) 2 CMRAD No. 148 of 2025

7. This is a review application against the judgment and order dated

02.07.2025 passed in the Special Appeal Defective No. 140/2025 (State of U.P. and three others vs. Uma Shankar Singh) which reads as under : "Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025

1. An application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit has been filed along-with the appeal.

2. Reasons in detail have been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application to which there is no objection.

3. In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue, as has been raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 191 of 2024(State of U.P. Thru. Princ. Secry. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Versus Jag Prasad Chaubey) rendered on 06.09.2024, whereby, intra court appeal of similar nature has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. In these circumstances, for the same very reasons, the present intra court appeal filed under chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, deserves to be dismissed.

6. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed."

8. At the very outset Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 45369 / 2025 (State of U.P. & others vs. Jag Prasad Chaubey) which reads as under : "Delay condoned.

2. Having considered the matters in depth, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order(s) impugned.

3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to persuade us on the ground that, in some similar matters, notice has been issued, but in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the present cases, and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents herein were selected on a regular basis under the applicable Rules, though not finally regularized and have continued in service, and further that the respondents are already being paid pension and are now advanced in age, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. 4. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. 5. However, we leave the question of law open, as it is already under consideration in two separate batch cases i.e., Writ Petition (Civil)No.1458/2020 (Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Department Non-Gazetted Employee Association (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. The Chief Secretary & Ors. and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25891 of 2017 (Prem Babu & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.)

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 3 CMRAD No. 148 of 2025

9. Sri Somvanshi has stated that since the Special Appeal of the State was dismissed on 2.7.2025 in the light of the order dated 6.9.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 191/2024 (supra) and the special appeal of the State challenging the same order i.e. order dated 6.9.2024 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of order dated 27.10.2025, therefore, this review petition has lost its efficacy.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Apex Court we do not find any infirmity or any error apparent in the order dated 2.7.2025, the order under review, therefore, this review application is liable to be dismissed being misconceived.

11. It is settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that the scope of the review is very limited and unless & until an apparent error is pointed out on the judgment in question or any apparent illegality has been made, the order in question may not be reviewed as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Thungabhadra Industries Limited vs. Governor of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1980) 2 SCC 167 and in the case of Lily Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 that review cannot be an appeal in disguise to re-hear the matter. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Subhash vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537 as well as Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095 and Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banki (Smt.) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78.

12. In the instant case, since there is no apparent error or illegality in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2025, therefore, this review application is dismissed in limine.

13. However, it is always open for the the review-applicant / petitioner / State to take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate court of law. December 12, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench