Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Pal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 30 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)146PLR365
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The claim of the petitioners for the grant of Assured Career Progression (for short "A.C.P.") Scales in terms of Rule 5 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for short "Rules") was rejected by this Court by order dated 25.11.2002. The petitioners claimed that their work charge period of service be counted for the purpose of counting the period of 10 years of service in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Having considered the matter, this Court held that Rule 5(1) of the Rules relates to satisfactory service and this service cannot include work charge service.
2. The petitioners seek review of the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that in fact a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram v. State of Haryana 2004 (4) S.C.T. 562 (P&H) (D.B.) held that where work charge service is followed by a regularization, such service would be treated as regular satisfactory service for the grant of higher A.C.P. Scales. Besides, it is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Haryana v. Ravinder Kumar C.A. No. 5740-5741 of 1997, decided on 31.10.2000 held that the period of work charge service is countable for the purpose of additional increments of higher standard pay scale after 8/18 and 10/20 years of service. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by this Court be reviewed and the work charge period of service rendered by the petitioners be counted for the grant of A.C.P. Scales.
3. Mr. Sidhu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the ground of review sought by the petitioners is without any basis and review cannot be sought merely on the ground that some judgments which cover the case of the petitioners were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the case.
4. After considering the entire matter, we found no ground to review the order dated 25.11.2002 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court, after considering the scope of Rule 5(1) of the Rules held that it relates to regular satisfactory service which does not include work charge period of service rendered by an employee. The judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram '$ case (supra) was passed on 8.7.2004 i.e. after the passing of the order dated 25.11.2002 by this Court. Moreover, Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) was decided by the Supreme Court on 31.10.2000 and the same relates to counting of work charge service for the purpose of giving additional increments on completion of 8/18 and 10/20 years of service. From the order passed on 25.11.2002, it is not discernible whether the same was highlighted or even referred during the course of hearing of the writ petition.
5. The fact that a Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram's case (supra) has taken a different view as was taken by this Court in terms of order of which the review is sought, in view of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C., cannot be a ground to review the order. The said Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 enjoins that the fact that on a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based, has been reserved or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for review of the judgment. Therefore, the Division Bench in Sita Ram's case (supra) has subsequently taken another decision which is based on Ravinder Kumar's case (supra), cannot be a ground to review the order that has been passed in the present case. Besides a review is not permissible merely because the petitioners had not highlighted the judgment rendered in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra). In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik 2006 (4) S.C.C. 76, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the parameters are described under Order XL VII of the CPC which permit a re-hearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any sufficient reason." The former part of the rule, it was held, deals with the situation attributable to the application and the latter part to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulates a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Order XL VII Rule 1 C.P.C.