Uttarakhand High Court
Balraj Singh Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 25 April, 2014
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Review Application No. 639 of 2013
Delay Condonation Application No. 11020 of 2013
Miscellaneous Application No. 11946 of 2013
In
Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012
Balraj Singh Negi. ........... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another. ............ Respondents
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General, with Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand / respondents / review applicants.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
There has been some delay in preferring the Review Application. An Application for condonation of delay has been filed. To that, an objection has also been filed. We have considered the averments made in both and are of the view that the review applicants have made out good grounds for condonation of delay. We, accordingly, allow the Application for condonation of delay.
2. The order under review directs implementation of the decision conveyed by the letter dated 30th December, 2008 of the Director General of Employment and Training. In the present Review Application, it is being contended that the Director had requested the State Government to fix the salary of contract faculty in ITIs / ITCs at par with the consolidated monthly salary of a regular newly appointed Instructor of the institute and that should be reflected in affiliation proforma. It has been submitted that was a mere request, and that such request has to be honoured w.e.f. 30th December, 2008, is not the mandate of the decision conveyed by that letter. It has further been contended that the said request was in relation to new affiliations.
3. We think, it is too late to make such contentions, as, no sooner we passed the judgment under review, we became functus officio. In the garb of review, review applicants are seeking us to add to the judgment under 2 review something, which has not been added in the judgment under review. The reasons given for seeking review do not permit us to sit in appeal over our own order and to pass a fresh order. We, accordingly, dismiss the Review Application. The Miscellaneous Application also stands disposed of.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
25.04.2014 25.04.2014
G