The court clarified that a review application must showcase error apparent on record or new material; significant delay in filing undermines its maintainability.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This review application has been preferred by the petitioners for review of the order dated 15.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1935 of 2014.Since, the petitioners have sought review of the writ court order; as such, brief facts as per the pleadings made in the writ petition requires to be enumerated herein, which reads as under: -

(i) The Writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) had filed the writ petition praying inter-alia for a direction upon the respondent authorities (Petitioners herein) to pay the entire retiral benefits including unpaid wages, gratuity, earn leave, ACP, group insurance, etc. along with pension. Writ Petitioner further prayed for a direction upon the respondent-authorities especially State of Jharkhand to determine the service condition for regularization of service in the Minor Irrigation Department, State of Jharkhand as directed by the State of Bihar at the time of deputation w.e.f. 11.01.2000 from Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (hereinafter referred as BHALCO) to Minor Irrigation Department at Ranchi Minor Irrigation Monitoring and Valuation Division, which was subsequently shifted to Dhanbad. The Writ petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 1168 dated 26.10.2013 issued by the office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Diversion, Dhanbad; whereby the revision of pay of the writ petitioner in the 6th Pay Scale which was given earlier vide letter No. 279 dated 20.03.2009 was withdrawn.

(ii) The Writ Petitioner had joined service of BHALCO as Store Keeper on 01.11.1975 and worked till 10.01.2000.Subsequently, he was sent on deputation to the sanctioned post of correspondence clerk in Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi for three years w.e.f. 11.01.2000 though the service conditions of the Writ Petitioner were to be decided by the Department subsequently; but the same was never done. On 20.03.2009, vide office order No. 279; the benefit of 6th Pay Revision Commission was made applicable to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Writ petitioner subsequently retired from service from the Minor Irrigation Division, Dhanbad on 31.03.2013. After his superannuation, the Writ petitioner made a representation before the respondent-authorities for payment of arrear of salary and other retiral benefits. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has withdrawn the benefit given to the Writ Petitioner on account of revision of pay scale on the basis of the recommendation made by 6th pay revision. The action of the Respondents was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a writ application being W.P.(S) No.1935 of 2014.

(iii) After hearing the parties, vide order dated 15.03.2021, the writ petition was allowed and the following order was passed:-

“15. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, all the three issues has been decided in favour of the petitioner. As such, the impugned letter as contained in memo no. 1168 dated 26.10.2013, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall make a representation before the respondent no. 4 for that period when he was posted at BHALCO and if any amount is still due; then the respondent State of Bihar shall calculate the same and take a decision on the claim of the petitioner and pay the same.

So far as the claim of regularization is concerned; in view of the aforesaid findings; the respondent-State of Jharkhand shall take a formal decision for regularization of this petitioner in view of the fact that it was not a case of transfer on