This High Court of Bombay dismissed a review petition challenging an order regarding pay scale reduction and recovery of excess benefits. The Court held that no ground for review was made out as the new documents were produced without due diligence.
Review petition rejected; no documents considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
rpwl-48.18.doc
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.48 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.77 OF 2007
Anand Y Pawar and Ors. … Petitioners Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. B.S. Nayak for the Petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, Addl. Government Pleader for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 9th OCTOBER 2018.
P.C. :
1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are relying upon the documents in the review petition which could not be produced before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and this Court. His submission is that when the writ petition was heard by a Division Bench and the order sought to be reviewed was passed, the petitioners were under an impression that as far as the reversion is concerned his remedy before the Tribunal would be kept open. His submission is that in this review petition, the documents which are annexed to the petition ought to be considered.
2 We have considered the submissions. Paragraph 4 of the judgment sought to be reviewed refers to two issues which arise for consideration. Paragraph 4 reads thus :- “4] In the aforesaid situation, broadly, two issues arise for determination:
2 rpwl-48.18.doc
(a) Whether the respondents were right in withdrawing the benefit of pay scale of Wireman from the petitioners and substituting the same with the pay scale of Assistant Wireman ?
(b) Assuming that the respondents were right in substituting the pay scale of Wireman with the pay scale of Assistant Wireman, then further, whether the respondents are right in seeking to recover the excess benefits obtained by the petitioners prior to substitution by order dated 25.10.2005?”
3 In paragraph 6, the reasons have been recorded for confirming the action of withdrawal of benefit of pay scale of wireman and substituting it by the pay scale of Assistant Wireman. However, the order of recovery of excess amount was set aside by the order sought to be reviewed.
4 There is no ground made out that the documents which are annexed to the petition could not be produced either before the Tribunal or before this Court notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence.
5 There is no error apparent on the face of the record and even otherwise, there is no ground for review. Accordingly, review petition is rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether new documents annexed to the review petition were produced despite due diligence.
Whether any error apparent on the face of the record exists to warrant review.
Anand Y Pawar and Ors.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
A.S. Oka
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
