STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAKESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is not present though duly served. This case has a chequered history. By a judgment of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.638 of 1989, titled: Rakesh Chand vs. State of H.P. & Another, passed on 24th February, 1997, the Tribunal ordered: In these circumstances the applicant succeeds. The respondents are directed to permit the applicant to join as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in pursuance of the appointment letter dated March 14, 1989, annexure R -1 within a period of 15 days. The respondents are directed to show the applicant in the seniority list as per the merit list prepared by the H.P. Public Service Commission. The applicant Rs.10,000/ -respondents is as are awarded a compensation. directed to sum pay of The compensation to the applicant within a period of four months of joining the post. The application is allowed with no order as to costs. -

(2.) THE State was aggrieved by this order and preferred a review petition which was rejected on the ground that no ground for recalling the order was made out. The orders passed on 10.7.2006 in MA No.1209/97 and Rev.Pet.No.29/97 record: MA -1209 of 97 The Tribunal by passing various order in the review petition which has already been registered appears to have by implication condoned the delay in filing the review petition. Hence no orders are called for in this MA, which is accordingly disposed of. Rev.Pet.29 of 97 The respondent is not served as the applicant appears to have failed to file correct/latest address of the respondent, though various opportunities were granted but the service could not be effected. The notice of the review petition appears to have been issued before condoning the delay in filing the review petition without considering the merits of the review petition. Therefore, it requires to be examined whether notice at all is required to be issued in this petition. Heard. It may be pointed out that review petition is maintainable only on 3 grounds i.e. (i) an error apparent on the face of the record or (ii) that some evidences/material which has come to the notice of the applicant of which he was not aware or which could not be filed despite due diligence at the relevant time or (iii) there is sufficient cause for review of the order. The last reason i.e. sufficient cause must have nexus with either of the two former grounds. In the case in hand the review petition does not disclose any of the aforesaid ground and thus is not maintainable. As a result this review petition is dismissed -.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General states at the Bar that despite service of the respondent on the address as given in the Original Application before the Tribunal and despite the fact that he was served in this writ petition, neither the petitioner or anybody on his behalf appeared before this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that pursuant to the direction given by the Administrative Tribunal in OA No.638 of 1989 the respondent herein (who was the applicant in the Original Application) did not join duties and has in -fact not joined any duties with the Department till date. In these circumstances, he is not entitled to be given any benefit. If this be the factual position the judgment dated 24th February, 1997 obviously cannot be implemented. It is a judgment in personam and the respondent having declined to take benefit of the judgment would not be entitled to any relief including costs awarded by the Tribunal.