HIGHCOTJRTOF Sewcw Pciitiuu Nu. 15 uf2008 APPLTrANT/ PETITIONEM S-M. Gondh^lc'kBr ased 49 veai^ S/o Shri M.GontihaSekai" Sub Divisional Engiiieer O/o DGM (WTR) Raipur (CG). RESPQNDENTS : 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lnnited Through : The Chaimian and Managing Director, BSNL: Bharat Sanchar Bhawao, Harish Chandra Matfaur Lane, Janpath NewDelhi-110001. 2. Tlie Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Westem Telecom Region, 11 Floor, Telephone House, Prabhadevi: Dadar (West): Mumbai. 3. The Chief General Manager, BSNL: MP Telecom Circle: Sanchar Bhawan : Opp- Govt. Printing Press: Hoshangabad Bhopal :IvIP. 4. The Chief General Manager, BSNL: Chhattisgarh Telecom Cireie : Doorsanchar Bhawan: Khamhardili: Raipur(CG). 5. Union ofliidia Through ; The Secretaiy to tlie Govt. of India Department of Telecnmmunication Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashok Road: Parliainent Street New Delhi-110001. (APPLICATION FOP.KE\"EW OF THE ORDEB- D.A.TED 03IiI> OF MARCH, 2008 PASSED IM W.P.fS)No. 1344/08) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, A_dvocate forthe applicant/petitioner. None for the respondents. ORALQRDER (Passed on llul ofApriI, 2008) I- By this petition, the applicant/petitioner seeks review ofPara 5 a-nd 6 ofthe order dated 03.03-2008 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1344/2008 (S M. Gondhalekar Vg. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others), on the ground that the Court has not considered the fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the admissible sca!e and, consequential benefrts on fixation of pay scale w.e.f. 07.07.1990. 2. I have heard leamed coiinsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner, perused the pleadmgs and dociiments appended thereto. In Para 4 of the judgment, sought to be reviewed here, it was cleariy found that the petitioner actiially 4 joined the pogt of Jiurior Telecom OfFicer w.e.f. 25.01.93, thou^ petitioner was granted the year 1989 for the purpose ofpromotion to fhe post of Junior Telecom Officer. Tlie petitiosier was graated the pay scale as it was held in Para 6 ofthejiidgpsent dat^d 03.03.2008 a^ under ; "6. Applymg the wdl settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case fhat the petitionerjoined to the office ofthe Junior Telecom OfScer on 25.01.1993, the petitioner is not entitledto any arrears ofsalary or olher benefits for the retrospective period." The fixation of salary with retrospective date was coasidered but not granted as the petitioner joined the office ofJunior Telecom Officer on 25.01.93. It is well settled that arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view ofthe principle ofno work no pay in case of retrospective promotion {See Union oflndia Vs. B.M. Jha (JT 2008 (1) SC 77)}. The word "notional" 's we!! understood in servicejurispn'dence that needs no explanatioii/darification. The Hon'ble Suprenie Coiirt in the matter ofUnion oflndia v. B.M. Jha observed as undcr: "5..... .It was argiied by leamed counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective proniotion is given to an incumbent nomiaHy he is entitled to all benefrts flowing therefrom. However, this Court inthe case otState ofHaryana and others v. DJ>. Gupta and ofherf and followed in ihe case of A.K. Saiimini v. State Bank of Travancoiv has taicen the vievv that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it camiot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incuHibcHt has not worked in the proniotion^l posrt. These decisions relied onthe priiiciple- ofno work no p^-y -..." Oa penisal of the papers and doeunientg appeaded thereto, there is no atiT?atet?t error on ihe face ofreeofds. • 2007 (8) SCJ 683 2 1996 f7) SCC 533 3 TT 2003 (8) SC 35. Sahn ' 4y •. 6. The review petitioner has not pointed oirt any aiaiiifest error on the record and the petitioner has not fiirther brought mto the notice, any new fact which could not be produeed earlier despite diligeiit efForts made by the petitioner. It is wel! settled principleg oflawthat the review proeeedings are not by way ofan appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Ru'e 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exerdse of review jurisdietion by the High Court "nder Ajlicle 226 of the Constitirtion. The applicant h^-s not prodiiced any nc'w gyoimd for reviei^ except the same grounds which have been considered and decided inthe wrif petition. 7- The principle oflaw is wel! settled by several judicial pronouneements ofthe HonWe Supreme Court in the case ofSmt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhar\r Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of ladia and others , Ajit Kunlar Rath Vs. State ofOrissa and otiiers , Goverament ofT.N. and others Vs. M. Aaanchu Asari and others and Keria State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothennies & Hydropower Ltd. and others . Appiying the we!! settled principles of law to the present case, there is no ground available for review ofthe order dated 03.03-2008 under the garb of the review pctition^ the petitioncr seeks -3n oppoitunity to axgiie the errtire case afresh whieh would amoutit fo c-onvert the review petition itito an appeal and the samc is not sustainable in law. 9. As a result aiid in view ofthe foregpmg, this review application is dismissed. No order as to eosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 6 -7 'AIR1995SC455 'AIR200SC1650 AIR2000SC.85 inns (2) SCC 332 3 ^OOS f'ri*\ KFT' ^^ 1 — \ / h''^^'^--' ^-'*'-t-