UNION OF INDIA Vs. UKKU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed seeking restoration of Review Petition No.477/2009, which was dismissed because of non compliance of peremptory order dated 4.12.2009. THIS application is also barred by limitation of 1 year 228 days, for which the applicants have filed I.A.No.11872/2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing M.C.C.No.1326/2011.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that respondent Ukku Singh filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.No.545/2003 and was decided by order dated 2.4.2007 by this Court. In the writ petition a Division Bench of this Court directed thus :- In view of the aforesaid, we command the respondents keeping in view the consonance of the direction of the tribunal shall take the appellant in service as a casual labourer and his case shall be considered for regularization as per direction of the tribunal on preferential basis. We have said so as we have been apprised that benefits of regularization has been conferred on respondents 5 and 6 but the order of the tribunal has not been given effect to in respect of the petitioner. THE petitioner be taken back in service, if he is not working, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order passed today, as agreed to by Mr. Dharmadhikari. Needless to emphasize order of a forum has to be respected unless it is modified. THE preferential treatment qua respondents 5 and 6 shall be adjudged on the parameters and paradigms of the scheme within a period of three months. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs. C.C., as per rules within three days.

(3.) THE Review Petition No.477/2009 was filed seeking review of order dated 21.8.2009 (supra) on the ground that the statement made by Mr.S.A.Dharmadhikari that Ukku Singh had already been allowed to work as casual worker since 18.1.2009 and he is given 18 days work in a month and the same shall not be reduced, was made without any instructions of the applicants herein. This statement was objected in Review Petition No.477/2009.