JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri. Dileep Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner/review petitioner and learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner-respondent in special appeal, seeking a review of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2016 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Special Appeal (D) No. 147 of 2016.

3. The petitioner with respect to his grievance that he was being treated as Seasonal Collection Amin filed W.P. No. 425 (SS) of 2011 (Shyam Lal vs. State of U.P. and Others) for direction to the opposite parties to treat him as regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 03.07.1986, claiming the benefit of the judgment dated 19.08.2006 passed in W.P. No. 4031 (SS) of 2001 (Pratap Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Others). In Pratap Narain Pandey, this court had quashed the order dated 19.09.2000 impugned therein and had directed the authorities to allow the petitioner of that writ petition to work as Regular Collection Amin since 05th June, 1986 for the purposes of seniority etc, except the salary for the period during which he did not work. The review petitioner was extended the same benefit vide order dated 09.09.2011 but in the Special Appeal, the judgment dated 09.09.2011 was set aside and the Writ Petition No. 425 (SS) of 2011 was dismissed after condoning the delay. The Special Leave Petition filed by the review petitioner was dismissed on 29.07.2016 by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that after dismissal of the S.L.P. against the judgment under review, the review petition is not maintainable.

5. Sri. Dilip Kumar Gautam has submitted that the review petition is maintainable, as the order of dismissal of S.L.P. was without assigning any reason, placing reliance on Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now Known as Khoday India Limited) and Others vs. Sri. Mahadeshwara Sahakara, (2019) 4 SCC 376.

6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that in compliance of the judgment dated 09.09.2011, the petitioner was given appointment on 13.09.2012 and his services were confirmed after completion of two years' probation period on 16.01.2015, and he was given benefit of seniority w.e.f. the year 1986 vide order dated 17.07.2015. The special appeal was filed in the year 2016 after all these events had taken place but without disclosing the facts correctly and by concealing the material facts of the confirmation of petitioner’s services and giving of seniority etc benefits. He has submitted that the writ petition was decided after giving opportunity for filling counter affidavit to the State-opposite parties vide order dated 27.01.2011, however, no counter affidavit was filed, but in the Special Appeal plea was taken that the learned Single Judge without calling for any counter affidavit and opportunity to contest, allowed the writ petition, and resultantly in the judgment under review, it has been observed that the writ petition was decided on the first day, which is factually not correct. He has further submitted that counsel for the respondent-petitioner could not appear before this Court in appeal therefore these facts could not be brought to the notice of Hon’ble Court for its consideration. However the primary duty in this regard to disclose correct and complete facts was on the appellant, who did not discharge it. Non-consideration of these facts has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice as petitioner has been ousted from service consequent to the judgment under review.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the judgment under review does not suffer from any apparent error of law and the review petition deserves to be dismissed. However, he could not dispute that the writ petition was not decided on the same day but was decided after providing opportunity of filing counter affidavit, which was not filed. He also could not dispute that the orders dated 13.09.2012, 16.01.2015 and 17