Honble CHAUHAN, J. – This review petition has been filed by the applicant Uda Ram against the judgment and order dated 21.8.97 passed in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/1989 on the ground that the relief claimed by him in the writ petition had not been considered as the petitioner had claimed the benefit not onlyof regularisation but also challenged the order dated 20.1.1989 by which the services of the petitioner on adhoc basis had been terminated and he also claimed the benefit of the provisions of Art. 39 (d) of the Constitution of India.

(2). None is present for the applicant-petitioner. Heard Mr. N.M. Lodha and Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3). The said judgment and order dated 21.8.97 was passed after hearing Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner and it was disposed-of in terms of the judgment passed by this court earlier in other connected writ petition. It has been pointed out by Mr. Lodha that the relief claimed by the applicant for equal pay for equal work under Art. 39 (d) of the Constitution was also a subject matter of the other writ petition i.e. 2175/1988 to which petitioner was also a party as his name appeared i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document