IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.212 of 2007 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNFMET OF BIHAR. 3. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 4. THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. ………. PETITIONERS. Versus 1. TARAK NATH SHARMA, SON OF MATHURA PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. – RAZA BAZAR, DISTRICT – PATNA. 2. THE ACCONTANT-GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ………. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 30.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 13.07.2007 by which a Bench of this Court allowed C.W.J.C. No. 10943 of 2000 with a direction to the authorities to release to the petitioner full pension and other retirel dues to which he was entitled including gratuity etc. with interest. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent no. 1 for payment of entire retirel dues including gratuity not only with statutory interest @ 12.5% but also penal interest @ 18% from the date of superannuation till the date of payment. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2007 which is under review in the instant case. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner, namely, State of Bihar and its authorities has claimed that the writ petitioner did not come with clean hands as his claim was barred by the principle of res 2 judicata due to filing of another writ case bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8636 of 2004. 5. It is quite apparent from the face of the record that the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 10943 of 2000, out of which this review has arisen, was filed much earlier in the year 2000 and four years thereafter another C.W.J.C. No. 8636 of 2004 was filed by the writ petitioner with a prayer to count his previous service rendered by him on the non gazetted post on regular basis in the State of Bihar prior to his joining in the new assignment as Circle Officer, Udwantnagar, and had further prayed to grant all the retirel dues of that very period specially in the circumstances when he came to know through grant of his provisional pension, in which the period mentioned above was not counted for the purpose of pension and other retrial dues. In paragraph 5 of the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 8636 of 2004 it was specifically mentioned that petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 10943 of 2000 for payment of his retirel dues after his retirement from his regular post which was still pending and during pendency of the said writ petition he was granted his provisional pension through which only he came to know that his regular service rendered on the non-gazetted post in the service of State of Bihar was not counted, hence he was left no other option but to file another writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 8636 of 2004 for the said purpose. 6. In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that the claim of the State of Bihar and its authority that the writ petitioner has not come with clean hands and his claim was barred by res judicata 3 due to earlier writ petition is absolutely frivolous and baseless. 7. Neither any error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out nor has any material been produced on behalf of the review petitioner which was not available with them at the time when the order under review was passed. It transpires that this civil review has been filed only as an excuse due to non-appearance of the State Counsel at the time of final hearing of the writ case. 8. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the writ case was listed all of a sudden and on that date the list of the court was not supplied to him. This is quite a lame excuse, as if any of the State Counsel does not receive the daily cause list, they easily verify the same immediately from the office of the learned Advocate General. It is not that when the list is not supplied to any counsel at home, he abstains from coming to the court and from verifying his cases in the court also. Had this been done, the learned counsel for the State could have at least appeared in the court and could have prayed for adjournment. Nothing of the sought having been done, the learned Single Judge was quite justified in passing its order specially when the writ case was of the year 2000 and was being taken up after seven years in 2007. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in the civil review petition which is accordingly dismissed. kundan (S. N. Hussain, J.)