Point of Law : Daily wagers - Entitlement of minimum pay scale - Scope of review of order - Held, power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications - No error apparent on face of record - Review not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Review has been sought by the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh and its officials of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2018, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11964 of 2018 and in two other connected cases, relying upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 35935/2019, dated 8.1.2020. The order of Supreme Court dated 8.1.2020 is reproduced hereinafter:-

“By referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the learned Solicitor General submits that the initial engagement of the petitioners in the said writ petition was obtained on the basis of fabricated documents. The Government did not get an opportunity to file counter affidavit in the other writ petitions which were disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 14.11.2018 of this Court passed in Sabba Shanker Dubey vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018 etc.

He submits that the point pertaining to the initial engagement/entitlement of the Respondents being improper has not been considered by the High Court. He seeks leave to withdraw these Special Leave Petitions with liberty to approach the High Court by filing review petitions.

Permission is granted.

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

We are informed that a contempt has been filed by the Respondents. Contempt proceedings shall not be taken up till the review petitions are decided by the High Court.”

2. It is after expiry of 11 months of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the review application alongwith application for condonation of delay has been filed on 20th November, 2020. The delay condonation application has been allowed by a separate order of the date, passed on the delay condonation application.

3. A counter affidavit alongwith misc. applications have been filed by the writ petitioners opposing the prayer made by State in the review petition. The writ petitioners contend that filing of the review application is actually a fraud played on the Court and various submissions are made to substantiate such plea. The review petition has been heard and the records have been minutely scrutinized so as to maintain sanctity of the Court proceedings.

4. I have heard Sri. Arimardan Singh Rajput and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State and its authorities and Sri. Pankaj Srivastava for the writ petitioners.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties, it would be necessary to notice essential facts in light of which the present petition came to be decided earlier and for appreciating the arguments raised in review matter.

6. Writ Petition No. 11964 of 2018 came to be filed by Mohan Swaroop (writ petitioner no. 1) and Jwala Prasad (writ petitioner no. 2), seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 08.03.2018, 27.03.2018 and 02.04.2018 passed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively (Annexure Nos. 18, 19 and 20 to this writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to continue to pay Rs. 18,000/- as minimum of pay scale to the petitioner which they were getting prior to the aforementioned impugned orders during the pendency of the present writ petition.

(iii) issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.”

7. A counter affidavit was filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 19.7.2018 in the writ petition, running into 166 pages, followed with a supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 16.8.2018. The matter was heard and this Court found as a fact that both petitioners were working since 1991 and were alread