UNION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHAN CHAND VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is at the instance of the respondent in CWP No. 5683 of 2010. The issue pertains to the grant of second ACP. In the judgment in CWP No. 349 of 2003, this Court held that the original applicant before the Tribunal was entitled for the first ACP, though, he did not possess the qualification for the higher post. That was challenged before the Apex Court by the review petitioner herein. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Apex Court held as follows :

(2.) ON completion of 24 years, the applicant claimed second ACP. That was denied. The Tribunal held against the applicant on the ground that the Full Bench of the Tribunal had taken a different view. That order was challenged before this Court, leading to the judgment dated 4th March, 2011, which is sought to be reviewed by the respondent. We have held at paragraph 11 of our judgment that the judgment in CWP No. 349 of 2003 is binding between the parties on the issue and that the Apex Court had only taken away the precendential value of the same. What the applicant claimed before the Tribunal is only the benefits of the second ACP, on the basis of the finding in his favour in the judgment in CWP No. 349 of 2003, the SLP against which was dismissed. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that once the Apex Court had clarified that the judgment will not have precendential value, the same should not have been relied upon by this Court while dealing with the issue of second ACP. As we have already noted above, the judgment on that issue between the parties is still binding on them. That value has not been taken away by the Apex Court either by modifying the judgment or by setting aside the judgment. It is the benefit of that judgment which has been directed to be given to the applicant. It is not as if it is made a precedent in other cases.

(3.) THE review petition is dismissed, as above, so also the pending application(s), if any.