Dismissed

Himalaya Singh Martoliya and Others v. Union Of India and Others

Uttarakhand HC2 Aug 2014WPSB/312/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition filed to reargue a previous decision regarding a public servant's allocation to Uttarakhand. The bench held the impugned order was not reviewable under CPC provisions and characterized the attempt to reargue the case as impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; order dated 25.02.2014 remains in force.

Himalaya Singh Martoliya and Others Vs Union Of… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

WPSB No. 312 of 2013 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Hon’ble U.C.Dhyani, J.

¶2

Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Advocate for the review applicants.

¶3

Smt. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel

¶4

for the Union of India/respondent no. 1.

¶5

Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 4 to 7. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the respondent no. 9.

¶6

Present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 25.02.2014.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that the Hon’ble Court did not consider how strongly the respondent no.9 may make out his case that his selection was made in the year 1998 and that he is liable to serve in the State of Uttarakhand after reorganization of the State. The respondent no. 9 was appointed vide order dated 17.01.2001 by the State of Uttar Pradesh and there is no order in respect of his inclusion in the services of State of Uttarakhand.

¶8

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the review applicant that there is no provision in Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 to show that if respondent no. 9 has come into service after reorganization of the State, then he was entitled to allocation in the State of Uttarakhand. The appointment of respondent no. 9 was a post reorganization appointment.

¶9

In a nutshell, the contention of learned counsel for the review applicant is that any person who was appointed after the cut-offdate in the State of Uttar Pradesh, could not have been given the benefit of the order

¶10

dated 5.10.2005 issued by the Government of India.

¶11

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the review applicant. The order dated 25.02.2014 passed by this Court is not reviewable in view of Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC.

¶12

By way of filing such review petition, the review applicant seeks to reargue the case, which is not permissible in law.

¶13

Review application, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

¶14

(U.C.Dhyani, J) (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 02.08.2014

¶15

Ravi

Himalaya Singh Martoliya and Others v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himalaya Singh Martoliya and Others v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.l. Kaubiyal Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Dharma Devi Vs National Insurance Compant Ltd. and Another

Vijay Ram Vs Ludru @ Rudreshwar Prashad and Ano

Jamil Ahmad Vs Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evem Nirman Nigam and Another

Dr. Vikram Singh and Others Vs Om Prakash

Mehboob Islam Ansari Vs Aftab Mohammad Khan