PREM RAM Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUN & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-2-42
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 29,2012

PREM RAM Appellant
VERSUS
Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal And Nirman Nigam, Dehradun And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) Review Application No. 969 of 2011
(2.) AS the present review application is frivolous and accordingly, for having had filed such frivolous review application, we would impose appropriate cost upon the review applicant. We would similarly impose personal cost on Ms. Joyce Irwin for having had made unjust, untrue and unverified submissions to this Court. The review applicant had filed a writ petition. In that writ petition, he sought regularization of his service. His writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to him to move the concerned authorities, if there is any scheme for regularization. Against the order thus passed on the writ petition, an appeal was preferred by the review applicant. At the time of pressing the appeal, it was contended that a few people, who were also working as daily wagers, were subsequently regularized, but while they were regularized, though they were juniors, the case of regularization of the review applicant was not considered. The respondent -employer in clearest of clear terms, indicated in its pleading that there is no scheme for regularization of a daily wager. In that background, the question that cropped up was how daily wagers could be regularized when there is no scheme for regularization. The review applicant in his writ petition had shown that regularization of many a people had taken place on 1st July, 2003. Apropos that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent employer stated that at the time of such regularization, the respondent employer was not in existence and, such regularization was made by the predecessor of the respondent employer. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. Against the order dismissing the appeal, the present review application has been filed with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the review application. The learned counsel for the respondent employer Ms. Joyce Irwin holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni obtained two weeks time to file objection but no objection was filed. When we inquired the reason for not filing objection, the prompt answer was that the respondent employer has moved the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate while making the said statement before the Court felt that she can make any and every statement before the Court with impunity. The fact remains that the respondent employer succeeded in the first round of litigation before the Writ Court as well as in the second round of litigation before the Appellate Court and accordingly, had no occasion to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. For having had, therefore, made such unjust & irresponsible statement, we impose a cost upon Ms. Joyce Irwin of a sum of Rs. 1000/ - to be deposited by her within seven days from today with the State Legal Services Authority, Uttarakhand. The reason for filing the present review application is the reply given by the respondent employer on the inquiry made by the review applicant under the Right to Information Act, in relation to four of the persons out of 17 persons, said to have been regularized on 1st July, 2003, to the effect that neither the respondent employer nor its predecessor had given any employment to those four persons. It is, therefore, the contention in the review application that there was incorrect statement on behalf of the respondent employer to the effect that regularization of those persons were made by the predecessor in interest of the respondent employer. Even if, that is an incorrect submission and even if, the information supplied to the review applicant under the Right to Information Act is correct that would not show regularization by the respondent -employer and that too of juniors to the review applicant and accordingly, would not pave the way for the review of the order passed on appeal. The review application is without application of mind and, thoroughly misconceived and filed only for the purpose of wasting the Courts' time. We, accordingly, impose a cost of Rs. 2000/ - upon review -applicant which cost shall be deposited by the review applicant within four weeks from the date hereof with the State Legal Services Authority, Uttarakhand. In default, the order directing payment of cost shall be executed as a decree.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.