NAGENDRA SINGH Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant wants to argue before us contrary to what has been recorded in the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2012, wherein it has been conceded that if the medical facilities and medical reimbursement is granted in accordance with law as per the advice of the Medical Board, the petitioner shall be fully satisfied. The writ petition has been decided accordingly on the basis of the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner. So far as challenge to the order of compulsory retirement is concerned, that was not argued before the learned single Judge. Therefore, the argument, which had not been argued before the learned single Judge, cannot be entertained here, particularly when it runs contrary to the facts recorded in the impugned order. The only remedy available to the petitioner-appellant was to file review before the same learned single Judge, if the admission have wrongly been recorded in the impugned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the petitioner-appellant had moved on Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 2502/2012 for pressing that point, but that was not decided. Filing of Interlocutory Application may be there but at the time of argument, mind may change. Therefore, all these things can be considered and examined by the learned single Judge who passed the order recording what transpired and happened in Court. This appeal is, thus, dismissed with liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy of filing review in accordance with law, if the petitioner-appellant wants to question the fact recorded in the impugned order or if his contention have not been considered or admission has wrongly been recorded.