VIRENDER SINGH,C.J - (1.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
(2.) Through the instant review petition, the petitioners, who are substituted as legal heirs of Narmadeshwar Prasad Chaturvedi @ N.P.Chaturvedi, through the medium of I.A. No.1333 of 2013 allowed by this Court vide order dated 21st April, 2015, are seeking review of the order dated 09th June, 2008, while dismissing L.P.A. No.185 of 2008. The said order reads: "Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order particularly when the petitioner -appellant has already moved Central Government Industrial Tribunal. This appeal is dismissed."
(3.) The original petitioner, Narmadeshwar Prasad Chaturvedi @ N.P.Chaturvedi filed W.P.(S) No.3520 of 2007 seeking pay scale of Pit Supervisor on the ground that he was actually working as Pit Supervisor, though on temporary basis, till his case was to be considered for promotion before the Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore, he was entitled to the said pay scale. In order to strengthen his case, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Babulal Jain Versus State of M.P. & Others, reported in, (2007) 6 SCC 180. The learned Writ Court, while dismissing the writ petition, observed : "It appears that after about eight years petitioner raised such claim by filing WPS 4679 of 2002 which was disposed on 3.4.2007 with a liberty to the petitioners to make a representation which was to be disposed in accordance with law. Some of reasons for rejecting petitioner's representations are as follows: - Petitioner was Dozer Operator and retired as such. As the erstwhile post of Pit Supervisor had become ex cadre post, there was no occasion to consider his case for promotion to the said post. However, petitioner was upgraded and granted first S.L.U. in higher scale of pay as that of dozer operator special grade A w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and then again on the 1.1.2004 the second SLU was granted. It is further noted in the impugned order that petitioner had raised an industrial dispute on the same and similar issue which is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad being Ref. Case No.12 of 2001 which was suppressed by the petitioner before this court. Mr. Banerjee could not show any provision or rule of the company under which he was entitled to officiating pay/ allowance. The case of Babulal Jain (Supra) is of no help to him as the facts of the said case and the present case are entirely different. Moreover, the petitioner moved the Court of law after about eight years raising such claim with effect from 1994." ;