JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM APPL.21815/2022

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 54745/2018

3. The REVIEW PET. 473/2018 has been filed by the respondents seeking review of the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by this Court, whereby it has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application (OA) No.1131/2010,wherein the Tribunal has directed the petitioners i.e. MCD to pay difference in wages to the respondent of the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 18.05.2005 by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Selveraj v. Lt. Governor of Islands, Portblair & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 291

4. We find that this review petition has been filed in the year 2018 with a delay of 1665 days. A reference is made to the order passed by the Supreme Court in a SLP filed by respondent/Rajinder Prashad Sharma dated 07.05.2013 wherein the following has been stated:-

“After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition to enable the petitioner to file a Review Application. Liberty is granted without any liberty to challenge the same very impugned order before this Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

5. The review petitioner vide this application is seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition by stating in paragraph 4 as under:-

“4. That thereafter, the petitioner herein/respondent filed the review petition before this Hon'ble High Court vide diary No. D-47894/2014, which remained under objection and could not be listed. However, in the meantime the respondent fall sick and undergone surgery for knee replacement as well as serious urine infection thereby remained under medical treatment during the period from 2014 to 2015, therefore, could not get the review petition listed, which was under objection. While the respondent was recovering from his illness, his mother expired in the year 2015 and his step mother also expired in the year 2016. During this period even his wife remained sick. After coming out from the depression of the death of his mother and step mother while improving upon his own illness the petitioner herein / review application contacted his counsel for pursuing the review application. However, while doing so he again had to approach the hospital for urine infection/diabetics in the year 2016. The petitioner herein / review applicant is still under medical treatment from the specialist. Copy of medical documents/reports as well as death certificates of mother and step mother are annexed herewith as Annexure RP-3 (colly). Meanwhile, one of the respondents in Tribunal i.e. Sh. A.K. Jain also expired during this period due to depression. Therefore, the present respondent / review petitioner i.e. Sh. R.P. Sharma was left to pursue the case, who is also under medical treatment by the specialist.

4. That now the petitioner approached the counsel immediately for removing the objections, which were there in the review petition. However, when contacted the registry to remove the objections and it could be learnt from the registry of Hon'ble High Court that the review petition for placing these medical documents on record before this Hon'ble Court. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the petitioner has been pursuing his case sincerely and there is no deliberate delay on his part in filing Review Petition. Even otherwise also, the Petitioner who has a good case on merits should not be deprived from his claim on technical issue of limitation.”

6. For the reasons stated in the application, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 1665 dyas in filing the Review Petition. The application is disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 473/2018 & CM APPL. 50864/2022

7. This review petition has been filed by the respondent seeking review of the order dated 07.05.2013, passed by