Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) The present review application has been preferred for modification/review of the order dated 29-1-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 293 of 2009 whereby this Court has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid writ application, in view of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2000 and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, confirming the order of the Division Bench, whereby the order of termination of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and recovery of salary were interfered with.
(2.) Before adverting to the merit of the writ application, it would be pertinent to state the facts bridfly : The petitioner was appointed as a Chairman on 25-5-1987 and he was terminated from services on the ground of illegal appointment on 22-2-1997. Against the order of termination, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons filed C.W.J.C. No. 3345 of 1997 which was allowed and the order of termination was set-aside. Even after order of setting aside since the petitioner was not allowed to join, he preferred W.P.(S) No. 1897 of 2002 in acceptance of his joining and thereafter on 14-9-2002 the joining of the petitioner was accepted. Against the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3345 of 1997 the State preferred appeal vide L.P.A. No. 675 of 2000 and the said appeal was allowed on 29-1-2003 and against the order passed by the Division Bench, the petitioners moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted of status quo vide order dated 13-10-2003 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7233-7235 of 2003 and during that period the petitioners were working as per the direction. Finally, the special leave petition was dismissed on 11-7-2006. Thereafter interlocutory application seeking clarification was filed which was also dismissed on 24-11-2006. After the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner made representation to the Secretary, Water Resources Department giving details about the appointment. The respondent No. 2 wide order dated 11-7-2006 terminated the services of the petitioner and other similar persons in the light of judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2000 which was allowed on 29-1-2003. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the petitioner preferred present writ application being W.P.(S) No. 293 of 2009 which has been dismissed vide order dated 29-1-2009 and the order of which is under challenge in the present review application.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Hon'ble Court has not given specific finding in respect of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of para 53 of the Uma Devi's case nor any finding has been given for regularization of the petitioner having putting more than 10 years of services. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court ought to have considered the facts of case in which the termination order has been set-aside has been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on similar issue and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be extended the benefit on the doctrine of parity.;