UMAKANT JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application for condonation of delay in preferring the review application is considered by us. Though we are not satisfied that the review applicant has any reason to file the review application, but having regard to the nature of the statements made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the review application and in particular that the order under review affects the applicant, while he was not a party to the proceedings, taking into account the reason furnished in the application for delay and being satisfied therewith, we allow the application.

(2.) WE have considered the review application. The principal grievance of the review applicant is that he was promoted to the post of General Manager prior to Umakant Joshi, the writ petitioner, whose writ was allowed by the judgment and order under review, whereby his promotion to the said post was directed to be taken into account from a date prior to the date of promotion of the review applicant. The review applicant contends that material facts were suppressed by Umakant Joshi and, accordingly, the order under review was passed. Not one single such fact could be brought to our notice. There is no dispute that after the punishment order was passed on 23rd January, 1999 in a disciplinary proceeding, many adverse entries were recorded in the service records of Umakant Joshi. No sooner the said order dated 23rd January, 1999 was set aside by the Tribunal, all those adverse entries though stood obliterated from the records, but were taken into account for denying promotion to writ petitioner. Those were taken into account while rendering the judgment and order under review and the correct course was indicated. Learned counsel for the review applicant then sought to rely upon Rules of seniority and submitted that in terms thereof, a person cannot get the benefit of the seniority if the same had not been acknowledged as on the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand. WE do not agree to such submission on the part of the learned counsel for the review applicant. No law made by the State can stand in the way of acknowledging the rightful rights of a Government employee. WE, accordingly, find no merit in the review application. The same is dismissed.