SUSHIL KUMAR MANDAL, SON OF LATE PRABHU MANDAL, RESIDENT OF CAMP Vs. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE CENTRE, MADAM KAMA ROAD, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that when W.P. (S) No. 5092 of 2006 was taken up for hearing on 16th Nov., 2011, counsel for the original petitioner had submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of the writ petition if a direction is given to the respondents to make payment of ex-gratia amount as per the policy floated by the respondents which was at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and hence, an order was passed accordingly. Now, the counsel for the applicant has submitted that they want compassionate appointment and not the exgratia amount as per policy floated by the respondents dated 16th Aug., 2005, whereas, father of the petitioner expired on 27th Sept., 2003, whereas the policy was floated later on.

(2.) Be that as it may, the fact remains that the aforesaid point was never argued before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5092 of 2006. Very limited argument was canvassed for disposal of the writ petition. Even in W.P. (S) No. 5092 of 2006, the policy floated by the respondents dated 16th Oct., 2005 was never under challenge. As per paragraph 3 of the said policy, which is annexed with the Civil Review application also, the same has been replaced of the existing compassionate appointment scheme.

(3.) It appears that this Civil Review application has been preferred in disguise of Letters Patent Appeal. All these points were never argued before this Court challenging the very policy of the respondents and, hence, this Civil Review application has no substance in the eyes of law.