HIRALAL V. PATEL Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred by original respondent nos. 1 to 4 of the Main Special Civil Application No. 1368 of 1991 against the order dtd. 24/1/2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, [Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt], whereby the said petition filed by the respondent herein, original petitioner, came to be disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pay lump sum amount of Rs.50,000.00 to each teachers in lieu of the statement of back wages.

(2.) It is contended by the applicants that they have engaged an advocate but he did not appeared in-spite adjourning the matter and thereafter the order dtd. 24/1/2017 came to be passed by this Court. According to them, since no submissions have been made on their behalf, substantial injustice has been caused to them and therefore, they have filed this application for review of the said order. According to them, they have contested the matter by engaging their advocate. According to them, initially original petitioners did not choose to proceed with the petition and it was once dismissed and thereafter after substantial delay of 1502 days, the original petitioner preferred restoration application which was allowed by condoning the delay and the main matter was restored. It is also contended that since the original advocate engaged by applicants had retired, they were constrained to engage another advocate. That thereafter on 12/1/2016, this Court disposed of the main petition with the direction that the petitioners shall pay amount of Rs.50,000.00 to each of the teachers. According to the applicant, on that occasion also, no one appeared for them.

(3.) The affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondent no. 2, wherein it is contended that no cogent, convincing and legal ground is mentioned for review of the order. It is also contended that the review application can be made only if, prima facie, there is an apparent error in passing the order or if some new material is available and whereby the original order is required to be reviewed. According to the respondent, in the present application, the order which is sought to be reviewed dtd. 24/1/2017 is passed on merits by this Hon'ble Court and therefore, there is no need of review of such order. It was also referred to the earlier orders passed by this Court in the year 2016 regarding the fact it has been submitted that as per the say of the applicants, they were appointed on 28/6/1984, 30/11/1986 respectively and they were terminated on 15/6/1988 and thereby they had only worked for two years and the School was closed down by an order dtd. 12/8/1988. It is also contended that even they are out of job since more than 35 years and they might have got the job elsewhere. It is contended that looking to the facts of the case, this Court has rightly allowed the petition by awarding Rs.50,000.00 to the applicants in view of the reinstatement.