Back
H.K.SEMA, P.K.GHOSH
Haobam Sunil Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. – Respondent
Subject: Power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including limitation, locus standi of third parties, and grounds such as discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, miscarriage of justice, or grave palpable errors. (!) (!) [14000160190003] (!) (!)
Facts: The review applicant, a senior ad-hoc appointee not party to the original writ proceedings (Civil Rule No. 1054/1989, decided 20.08.1990), challenged the High Court's judgment directing retrospective regularization of respondent No. 3 (another ad-hoc appointee) with benefits including pay, increment, seniority, and pensionary benefits. This allegedly allowed respondent No. 3 to supersede the review applicant in seniority. (!) [14000160190002][14000160190016] (!) [14000160190003][14000160190004]
Issues: 1. Whether the review application was barred by limitation (filed 13.12.1994 against 20.08.1990 order). (!) [14000160190005] (!) 2. Whether a third party (non-party to writ) has locus standi to file review. (!) [14000160190007] 3. Whether review power could be exercised (e.g., no new evidence or apparent error claimed).[14000160190003][14000160190009]
Court's Findings and Ratio: - Limitation: Not barred; review applicant diligently pursued remedies in wrong forums (Civil Rule Nos. 158/1992 and 1250/1994, disposed 29.11.1994 with liberty to approach appropriate bench). No laches or negligence; Article 137 (3-year residuary limit) inapplicable due to circumstances.[14000160190005][14000160190006] (!) (!) (!) - Locus Standi: Third party aggrieved by judgment has right to seek review, even if not original party.[14000160190007][14000160190008] (!) - Power of Review: Exercisable to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave palpable errors, beyond mere new evidence or apparent errors. Original order erred in granting ad-hoc appointee (respondent No. 3) seniority from ad-hoc date retrospectively, contrary to principles that ad-hoc/stopgap service does not count for seniority unless regularized per rules. No grievance on regularization itself, only seniority vis-à-vis review applicant.[14000160190009][14000160190010] (!) [14000160190011][14000160190012][14000160190013] (!) (!) [14000160190014]
Final Decision: Review allowed; judgment dated 20.08.1990 reviewed/modified to direct seniority of respondent No. 3 vis-à-vis review applicant per relevant guidelines/instructions. Impugned order dated 19.11.1994 quashed. No costs.[14000160190014][14000160190015] (!)
This civil review arises out of Civil Rule No. 1054 of 1989 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.8.1990. The Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench are not now available in this Court and so the matter has been placed before this Bench for disposal.
2. We have heard Mr. Koteshwar Singh, learned counsel for the review applicant, Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. HS Poonam, counsel for the respondent No. 1.
3. By the aforesaid judgment, following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Direct Recruitment of Class II Engineering Association vs. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 has allowed the writ petitioner (ad-hoc) to count the benefit of entire period of service for pay, increment, seniority, pension and other pensionary benefit, while directing retrospective regularisation. The operative portion of judgment runs as under :
"In the result, we allow the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall be given the benefit of regularisation from the date of his ad-hoc appointment provided it was continuous. In addition, we direct that if the ad-hoc appointment was made prior to attaining the qualifying s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
