Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Prasad Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 19 February, 2016
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
------
Civil Review No.25 of 2014
------
Surendra Prasad Thakur, retired Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, at Daltonganj, son of late Ram Nath Thakur, resident of Mohalla-Shri Krishnapuri, William Town, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District-Deoghar.
..................................... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Ranchi, P.O.& P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3.Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
4.Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau.
5.District Provident Fund Officer, Palamau at Daltanganj, P.O & P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamau
5.Deputy Secretary, Department of Personel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
.............. ...................Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Opp.Parties : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, Govt. Advocate
-----
04/ 19th February, 2016 Per Virender Singh, C.J.:
The pleas, now taken by Mr. Tandon, seeking review of the earlier order dated 16th May, 2014, passed in W.P.(S) No. 394 of 2014, may be with regard to the interest component only, from 2004 till 18 th August, 2013, in our considered view, will not be available to him as all these aspects have been dealt with in detail, in paragraph 15 of the order under review.
Considering the fact that the review petitioner had suppressed three letters dated 29.11.2010, 2.8.2011 and 27.6.2012, which could only disclose that he had been prosecuting his claim throughout for final withdrawal of G.P.F amount before the authorities concerned, bona fide and diligent was the ground for rejecting his claim and the same aspect once again cannot be reopened, there being already a categoric finding in this regard. The provisions, on which Mr. Tandon is now relying upon and the said plea not taken in the main writ petition, in our view, would not be a ground for reviewing the order as it amounts to rehearing the case afresh, there being otherwise no error apparent on the face of the record.
The net result is that the instant review petition deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar,J.) SB/SI/Birendra/LAK