P.P. Bhatt, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , by way of filing the present application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for grant of review and thereby extend the benefit of back wages which has been declined by this Court while delivering the judgment and order dated 24.02.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5447 of 2006. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials placed on record.
(2.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not gainfully engaged during the period of dismissal and he was taken care by his brother in his native place. It was further submitted that as per law contained in fundamental Rule (FR) 54A (3), when the dismissal order was set aside on the merit of case then the intervening period of dismissal, including the period of suspension, till the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purpose, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed prior to such dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon the grounds which are enumerated in the review petition, more particularly the grounds B, C and E. These three grounds are based on relevant provision of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has referred to and relied upon the Division Bench Judgment delivered in case of Nawal Kishore v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in : 2013 (1) JCR 495 : (2013 (1) AJR 771). Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring paragraph 16 of the said judgment has also submitted that the Division Bench has taken note of the judgment delivered in the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in : AIR 1962 SC 1334 and in the case of Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India and Ors., reported in : (1984) 2 SCC 578 : (AIR 1984 SC 1356) and followed the ratio laid down in those cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the above referred two decisions and pointed out the relevant paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 11 and 8 respectively of the said decision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents -State Government raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the review application mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the review application is not filed within the stipulated time of thirty days and secondly, that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the part of the judgment and order passed by this Court with regard to rejection of prayer for back wages, he is required to prefer an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.;