KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dtd. 2/5/2025 passed in M.P. No.865/2018, whereby, while allowing the petition of the respondent, this Hon'ble Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% back wages and to pay all consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a limited ground of non-consideration of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Gupta Vs. Nagar Palika Prishad, Sabalgarh reported in 2010 (2) MPLJ 644 while deciding the matter finally which has entailed grant of 50% of backwages which in the light of the aforesaid judgment was impermissible. Apart from the aforesaid ground, no other ground has been raised.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner during the hearing of the miscellaneous petition pertained to a case where the petitioner therein had worked only for a brief period of 300 days. In that context, although the order of reinstatement was upheld, it was specifically directed that such reinstatement would be without back wages. In the present case, however, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has worked for a period of approximately two and a half years, which cannot be equated with the duration of service in the case of Sunita Gupta (supra). Therefore, the analogy of the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, even if it is presumed that the same was not considered by this Court while passing the final order. Thus, the present review petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dokka Samuel Vs. Jacob Lazarus Chelly, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 478, wherein it has been categorically held that omission to cite a legal authority does not constitute a ground for review on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the record. Such omission, being an error on the part of counsel in not bringing relevant precedents to the notice of the Court, cannot be a valid basis for seeking review. In the present case, although it is argued that the said judgment was mentioned in the petition memo filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is not disputed that the same was not pressed at the time of final arguments.