Abuse of process of law through multiple applications for the same issue can lead to rejection of review applications.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Case called out. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The matter is very old and it relates to the year 1989 and accordingly, in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, we have considered it proper to take up the matter and decide the issue involved.

2. From the perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court with respect to orders dated 31.08.1989 and 09.11.1989. Vide order dated 31.08.1989, the petitioner was promoted to the post under Scale-II in the pay scale 1825-100-2925 and he was placed under jurisdiction of Zonal Manager, Lucknow Zone. Date of reporting of new place of posting mentioned in the order of promotion is 11.09.1989. In the said order it has been specifically stated that if the petitioner fail to report by 18.09.1989 then the promotion will stand annulled. The relief sought in the writ petition, related with the order dated 31.08.1989, are to the effect that the place of posting mentioned in the order dated 31.08.1989 be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to post the petitioner in Audit Department of the Bank. Vide order dated 09.11.1989 the petitioner was debarred from promotion to the next grade for three years and the same is under challenge on the main ground to the effect that the Clause 13.1, which is mentioned in the order impugned, is not applicable in the facts of the case.

3. From the record, it is also evident that the petitioner moved an application for amendment on 06.02.2006 but it appears that the same was not allowed and as such, no useful purpose would be served in considering the contents of the application for amendment.

4. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the services of the Bank on 31.07.2003. The fact pertaining to retirement is not disputed.

5. The writ petition was taken up on 31.08.2006 i.e. after the date of superannuation mentioned hereinabove and on the statement of counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

6. Thereafter, an application for recall of order dated 31.08.2006 was filed through Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate, and the said application was also dismissed on 18.07.2008, on the said date Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Another application was filed for recalling of orders dated 31.08.2008 and 18.07.2008 through Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate, and the said application was also dismissed for non prosecution on 01.07.2009. Thereafter, again an application was filed for recalling of order dated 01.07.2009 by Sri S.K. Dikshit, Advocate, and the said application was also rejected vide order dated 06.12.2013 on the ground to the effect that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 31.08.2006 in view of the statement made by Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel and the present application has been moved by another counsel and being so, is not maintainable. The orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013 are quoted below for ready reference:-

Order dated 31.08.2006.

Hon'ble U.K. Dhaon, J.

Hon'ble Alok Singh,J.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding bried of Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed being infructuous.

31.08.2006

PAL/10414-89

Order dated 18.07.2008.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

We have heard Sri K.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.08.2006 as having become infructuous.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties states that this petition has become infructuous.

Learned counsel for the application has stated that the petitioner has already retired from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue the case on merits.

We do not see any reason to recall the order dated 31.08.2006.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

18.07.2008

Rizvi (C.M.