GITA MITTAL, J.

CM No.6743/2015

For the reasons stated, the delay of 26 days in re-filing the review petition is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

Review Pet. No.216/2015

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 28th September, 2004 passed in the present appeal. Before setting out the essential facts, we may note the history of the litigation briefly, as is essential for the view we are taking.

2. A writ petition being W.P.(C)No.2149/2001 was filed by the petitioner contending that office memorandums dated 29th August, 1984 and 1st May, 1987 were not brought to his notice. By these office memorandums, the government employees who had opted for receiving CPF benefits on retirement were given an option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the pension scheme provided they refund to the government, certain benefits received at the time of settlement of CPF amount. The petitioner, therefore, claimed in the writ petition entitlement to exercise such option and shifting to the pension scheme.

3. This writ petition was rejected by a decision of the Single Judge dated 11th of February 2004. The petitioner assailed this decision against him by way of LPA No.393/2004 which came to be rejected by the Division Bench by a judgment dated 28th September, 2004. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against these decisions by way of SLP(C) No.1982/2005 which was dismissed in limine on the 7th of February 2005. The petitioner’s Rev.Pet.(C)No.727/2005 and Curative Petition(C) No.62/2005 also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 5th of April 2005 and 14th December, 2005 respectively.

4. The present petition seeking review of the judgment dated 28th September, 2004 was filed on 23rd of December 2014. It is admitted that the review petition has been filed belatedly, ie. ten years after passing of the judgment on 28th September, 2004. Hence, by way of accompanying application being CM No.6741/2015, the petitioner had sought condonation of delay in filing the review petition.

5. Both the review petition and the application for condonation of delay are premised on the same grounds i.e. that the review is predicated on discovery of “new facts which were not in existence earlier and to grant substantial justice to the petitioner”. We may note that the application for condonation of delay came to be allowed by this court by an ex-parte and non-speaking order dated 17th April, 2015.

6. We note some essential facts hereafter. The petitioner joined services of the Government of India as an Assistant Coal Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 25th April, 1955 and at the time of joining service, he became a member of Contributory Provident Fund under the administrative control of the Coal Production and Development Commissioner. The petitioner was paid wages as per the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay pattern. On the formation of the National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCDC’) on 1st October, 1956, services of all the employees including the petitioner stood transferred to this corporation.

7. As per the order dated 16th August, 1965 of the Government of India, the government transferred the ownership and management of the State Collieries to the NCDC w.e.f. 1st of October 1956. It was stated therein that the transferred employees in the NCDC would have the same tenure, remuneration, seniority, terms and conditions and the same rights and privileges as to pension etc., as would have been admissible to them, had the employee continued in government service.

8. On the 16th of March 1968, the petitioner joined the post of Chief Mining Engineer in the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘HZL’) on terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 7th December, 1966 with permission to retain a lien on his permanent post in the NCDC for a period of only one year. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the following term an