(1.) -By this application under Chapter V, Rule 12 read with Chapter 9 of Rule 7 of Rules of High Court Allahabad, the petitioner has sought review of the judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 77674 of 2005, Pradeep Kumar Sudele v. State of U. P. and another, which was disposed of in the terms of judgment order dated 23.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 64222 of 2005, Ram Briksha Prasad and others v. State of U. P. and others, whereby the petitioners' pending appeal/representation before the State Government was directed to be decided within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before I.G. Registration, U. P., Allahabad as well as concerned Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In case the petitioner succeeds in appeal, his case shall be considered or reviewed again by screening committee and appointing authority within a further period of two months thereafter.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that while working on the post of Sub-Registrar, Firozabad the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 16.9.2005 passed by I.G. Registration. Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. THE petitioner was appointed as Sub-Registrar on 19.8.1980 after recommendation of U. P. Public Service Commission and in pursuance thereof he has joined his post on 20.10.1980. He was given promotional pay scale vide order dated 20.10.1998 w.e.f. 1.3.1995. On 23.7.1997 I.G. Registration had passed an order withholding the next three increments of petitioner and further directed that during the period of suspension he shall not be entitled to any additional salary apart from subsistence allowance already received by him, in a disciplinary inquiry held against him. Against the aforesaid order dated 23.7.1997 the petitioner has filed a claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal which has been numbered as Claim Petition No. 180 of 1999, Pradeep Kumar Sudele v. State of U. P. and others. THE said claim petition is still pending. On 25.5.2000 an order has been again passed by I.G. Registration declaring the integrity of petitioner to be doubtful for the period 1993-94. Against the said order he has filed a representation dated 17.6.2000 before the State Government and the same is still pending with the State Government. On 18.9.2000 an order was again passed by I.G. Registration, whereby three annual increments of the petitioner were directed to be withheld with cumulative effect and the petitioner was also awarded censure entry and a direction was further issued to the effect that petitioner shall not be posted in a sensitive or major revenue earning district. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 17.11.2000 before the State Government and same continues to remain pending before the State Government. On 18.1.2005 an order has been passed by I.G. Registration, whereby three increments of petitioner have been withheld with permanent basis and an adverse entry was also awarded to him. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 18.1.2005 the petitioner has filed appeal on 18.4.2005 before the State Government and same continues to remain pending and no order has been passed by State Government till the date thereon, meanwhile impugned order dated 16.9.2005 has been passed retiring the petitioner on compulsory basis.
(3.) NOW before adverting to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, it would be useful to notice the observations and directions made in our decision dated 23.5.2006 in Ram Briksha Prasad v. State of U. P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1936 : 2006 (6) AWC 5641 (SC), in the terms of which we have disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner/applicant, wherein while taking notice of various provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995 and observations made by Hon'ble Court in Baikuntha Nath Das's case in paras 28, 29, 30 and 31 we have observed as under :