Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Singh Chaudhary Ors vs State (Forest Department)Ors on 7 February, 2017
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
1. S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 41/2017
1. Mahendra Singh Chaudhary, S/o Shri Ghoore Ram, Aged
about 42 years, R/o Village & Post Baragama, Tehsil Hindaun City,
District Karauli. At Present working as Forest Guard in Forest
Range Hindaun, Division Karauli.
2. Shri Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Pyar Singh Gurjar, Aged about 54
years, R/o Village Kasane Ka Nagla, Post Hukmi Kheda, Tehsil
Hindaun city, District Karauli. At Present Working as Forest Guard
in Forest Range Hindaun city, Division Karauli.
3. Bhajan Lal Jat S/o Shri Buddhi Ram, Aged about 47 years,
S/o Sadhana Colony, Satsang Bhawan, Bayana Road, Hindaun,
District Karauli. At present working as Forest Guard in Forest
Range Hindaun city, Division Karauli.
4. Prem Singh Mali S/o Shiv Lal Mali, Aged about 48 years, R/o
Nisooriyan Ka Pura, Hindaun, District Karauli. At Present working
as Forest Guard in Forest Range, Hindaun city, Division, Karauli.
5. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, Aged
about 55 years. At Present Working as Forest Guard in Forest
Range Gudha Chandra ji, Tehsil Nadoti, Division Karauli.
6. Om Prakash Ojha S/o Shri Chhate Lal Ojha, Aged about 50
years, R/o Needar Darwaja, Mandrayal , District Karauli. At
present working as Forest Guard in Forest Range Masalpur,
Division Karauli.
.......Petitioners/ Non-applicants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Forest
Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Conservator of Forest ( Soil Conservation) forest
Department, Karauli.
......Respondents/Applicants
2. S.B.Civil Review Petition No.39/2017 Gheesha Lal S/o Moti Ram Jat, aged about 53 years, resident of Dangiyavas, post Samrathpura via Kanwat, tehsil Khandela district Sikar (Rajasthan).
.....Petitioner/Non-applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HOFF), Van Bhawan, Jaipur.
......Respondent/Applicant _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Inderjeet Singh, AAG For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Order 07/02/2017 The defect/s, pointed out by the office, is overruled. Heard on the review petition.
It is submitted that similar review petitions have been dismissed by this Court in bunch of review petitions led by SB Civil Review Petition No.212/2016 in the case of Hanuman Sahay & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 17th November, 2016 thus same order may be passed in these cases also.
In view of the prayer, these review petitions are also dismissed in the light of the judgment of this court in the case of Hanuman Sahay & Ors. (supra). The following order was passed in the case of Hanuman Sahay & Ors. (supra) and would apply to these cases also :
"By these review petitions, a prayer is made to recall the orders passed on the writ petitions. In one of the writ petitions bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.4589/2012, the order was passed in following terms :
"In view of the prayer made, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for. In case of representation, respondents are directed to find whether petitioners' case is governed by judgment referred to above and if it is found that petitioner's case is covered by the judgment referred to above then respondents are expected to grant similar benefit as has been extended therein. In case of any difficulty in carrying out the direction, respondents would be at liberty to make an application for recall or modification of the order."
It is stated that a direction for consideration of representation was given in reference to the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. VS. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3620/2008 decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur on 06th February, 2012. The said judgment was complied so as the present order, but, a review petition was later on filed. It is pending consideration thus finality of the order in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) has not attained. Accordingly, the orders in the writ petitions may be recalled.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation and the respondents were directed to find out as to whether the case of the petitioner is governed by the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) and, if it is found covered by the judgment aforesaid, then to give benefits.
The State Government later on filed a review petition in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) and is pending consideration before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The recalling of the order has been sought only on that ground without realising that if the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) is reviewed, obviously it would be considered to be final and, thereupon, even as per the direction given in the order, sought to be reviewed, the State Government can very well deny the benefits claimed by the petitioner/s after consideration of the case. If the order passed in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) is maintained then also the representation would be considered to find out as to whether the judgment aforesaid applies to the petitioner/s or not.
In the light of the aforesaid and, as, at this stage, when the order in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) has not yet been reviewed, I do not find these review petitions to be maintainable. It is also for the reason that the State Government earlier complied the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) and, thereupon, filed the review petition thus all the review petitions are dismissed at this stage.
However, the respondents-applicants would be at liberty to file review petition/s afresh, if the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Dargoa & Ors. (supra) is reviewed and the State Government finds complications in the matter.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file."
(M.N. BHANDARI)J. Preeti, PA