Dismissed

Daya Pratap Pal v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024CMRA/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (LKO Bench) dismissed a review application seeking reconsideration of a writ petition decision. The court held that new material, including an Office Memorandum and a prior judgment, not submitted during the original argument, could not be considered, finding no error on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; no interference in the impugned judgment/order.

Daya Pratap Pal vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16346

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 20 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Daya Pratap Pal Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present review application has been preferred for review of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed by this Court.

¶7

Learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that the FAQ- Frequent Asked Questions dated 30.05.2013 issued by the DOPT was wrongly considered in the judgment under review whereas the case of the review applicant is covered by the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the review applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 04.09.2015 passed in W.P. No. 5265 (SS) of 2014 (In Re: Vishal Kumar vs. Union of India) where the controversy has attained finality.

¶8

After hearing learned counsel for the review applicant, it is found that the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 was never referred to at the time of argument of the writ petition nor the decision of this Court dated 04.09.2015 passed in W.P. No. 5265 (SS) of 2014 was placed before this Court. All this is a new material which is sought to be relied upon now in the review application.

¶9

The writ petition was decided on the basis of submission and material then placed at the time of argument. New material is not to be considered in the writ petition.

¶10

In view of the facts, circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove, there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to call for any interference in the judgment/order dated 24.01.2024 already passed in the writ petition.

¶11

The present review application is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Nitesh

¶13

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Daya Pratap Pal v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Pratap Pal v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Saran Supervisor and 79 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and 10 Others

Ravi Prakash Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.through Principal Secy. P.W.D.Lko. and Others

Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Ors.

Amit Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vigilance Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Sarojini Thakur Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another