IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.56 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9509 of 2010 ===================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi 2. The Chief General Manager, Telecom (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) Maintenance, Eastern Telecom Region, Kolkata 700001 3. The Chief General Manager, Eastern Telecom Region, Telephone Kendra, P-10, New CIT Road, Kolkata 10 4. The General Manager (Maintenance), E.T.R., 2nd floor, North Block, CTO building, Budha Marg, Patna 5. The Assistant General Manager, ETR, Telephone Kendra, 8th floor, P-10 New CIT Road, Kolkata-73 6. The Com. A.O. officer of the CCA, WBT circle, Division III, ETR 8, Esplaned East, Kolkata 69 7. Senior Accounts Officer (Cash) office of the G.M. ETR, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Sri Shiv Shankar Bhagat, son of Late Ram Dahin Bhagat, Ex- Senior T.O.A. (T.G.), office of the Divisional Engineer (Long Distance) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Patna, at present- Mohan Industries Lane Saristabad, Naya Tola, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sr. advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 4 01-02-2012 Heard the parties. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that there was suppression of facts by the respondent and on that account he succeeded before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It has further been submitted that respondent was not an employee of BSNL but this objection could not be taken Patna High Court C. REV. No.56 of 2011 (4) dt.01-02-2012 2 before the Tribunal. From the nature of submissions noticed above, it is evident that the petitioners have certain grievance that the Tribunal’s order suffers from error not on account of error of law but on account of suppression of relevant materials. We find no good reason to review the summary order dated 16-9-2010 whereby writ petition preferred by the petitioners bearing CWJC no. 9509/2010 was dismissed. However, we make it clear that dismissal of the writ petition does not amount to merger of the Tribunal’s order with the order of this court because we had dismissed the writ petition summarily without going into the merits of the case so as to give our own independent finding. Hence, if the petitioners are so advised they may move the Tribunal and raise a grievance that the order of Tribunal suffers on account of suppression of material facts. If issue of limitation arises in respect of review petition which may be filed before the Tribunal then the period for which review application has remained pending before this court shall be considered to be a relevant circumstance. The review application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. It goes without saying that the interim order shall not exist any more. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)