It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to turn around and challenge the order which has been passed with his consent: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
The contention of petitioner that only one part of his claim is to be considered by the respondents and other part is not to be considered by the respondents in terms of the order sought to be reviewed is not tenable. The aforesaid has been considered by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while adjudicating the case of Ravinder Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. [RPSW No.20/2018] which was decided upon by the single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar on 10th November 2021.
The facts of the case are as follows. The contention of review petitioner is that in the writ petition, besides claiming the relief of regularization, petitioner had also sought certain other reliefs which included a direction upon respondents restraining them from making any deduction in the pay and salary of the petitioner for the period corresponding to duration undergone in service under the directions of the Court or from giving latent effect to the termination order set aside by judgment. It is further averred that another direction asking the respondents to reckon the entire period towards the service without any break and to release other service benefits which shall accrue to the petitioner in consequence to regularization, was also sought but while disposing of the writ petition, the Writ Court only directed the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of petitioners regarding regularization. It is contended that it was incumbent on the Writ Court to deal with each of the reliefs which petitioner had claimed in the writ petition and not confine it to only the relief regarding regularization. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is an error apparent on the face of record of the impugned order which is required to be corrected.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “A perusal of the writ petition reveals that in para (8), it has been clearly stated by petitioner that his case has direct equation with the co-employee Ghulam Hassan Baba who had been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993. Since petitioner had claimed parity with aforesaid Ghulam Hassan Baba, therefore, the Writ Court directed the respondents to accord same treatment to the petitioner as had been accorded to Ghulam Hassan Baba while considering claim of the petitioner. The order of Writ Court is very clear that it is claim of the petitioner which he has raised in the writ petition which has to be considered by the respondents. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that only one part of his claim is to be considered by the respondents and other part is not to be considered by the respondents in terms of the order sought to be reviewed is not tenable. For what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record of the order dated 07.09.2018 which would warrant exercise of jurisdiction of review by this Court. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Click here to read the Judgment
Judgment reviewed by Aryan Bajaj