DIVISIONJBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HOM'BLE SU,R! SUN!L KUK"iAR S!NHA, J. RESPONDENTS 1.C.C. NO.'{37/2005 RadhaKrishna Sahu, S/o Buddhiman Sahu, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village & PO Raunda, PS & Tahsil - Dhamdhs, District - Durg (C.G.) Versys 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the & Rura! 2. 3. Sscretary', Panchsyat Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Rajpur (CG) The Collector. Dura, District Dura (CG) (^ Gram Panchayat, Raunda, Through its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Raunda, Biock Dhamda, Distt Durg frtr^^ (^^>) Shri Ramji Das Joshi, (Satnami) S/o Bahru Das Joshi Aged about 29 vears, R/o Viilage & Post, Raunda, PS S Tahsii Dhamdha, District - Dura (CG) APPLICATION FOR RECALLING/ REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 2S.?4,2005 PASSEDiN W.P. N0.1040/2083 Pressnt : Shri Anand Dadaria. counsel for the Detitioner. Shri NK Ayi-avva!, Deputy Advocste Genera! for the State / respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Pankaj Agravva!, counse! for rsspondent No.4. ORDER (9th Ssptsmber, 2008} The followina order of the Court was passed bv Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.fOP. No.1035/2005. a petition for condonation of delay in fiiina the Review Petition. feyV;-- '^c^ 2) On due cqnslderation of the submissions of learned counset for the parties, we are satisfled that the petltloner has succeeded in showina sufficient cause for the delav in filina the review Detition. 3) l.(C) P. No.1035/2005, therefore, is allowed and the delav in flling the Review Petition is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) The petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 29.04.2005 passed InWP No.1040/2003. 6) Respondent No.4 Ramji Das Joshi had flied writ petition (WP No.1040/2003) seeking quashing ofthe order;whereby his services as Panchayat Karmi were terminated. The learned Slngle Judge vide order dated 29.04.2005 altowed the writ petitlon and the order of petltloner's termination was set aside. The learned Single Judae further directed the respondent in the writ petition to take the petitioner in service with all consequentiai benefits. 7) The petitioner in the Review Petition, was, in the meantime, appointed in the vacancy created on account of the termination of the writ petitioner. 8) Shri Anand Dadaria, learned counsel for the-petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was a necessary party in the writ petition as the effect of the order dated 29.04.2005 in WP No.1040/2003 wouid be that on account ofthe reinstatement ofthe writ petltioner, the petitioner Is bound to be removed from the service. 9) Merely because, the petitioner in the Review Pet'rtion was appointed after the termination of the writ petitioner, the petitioner in the Review Petltion does not become necessary party in the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 challenging the order of his termination. 10) VVe, therefore, do not find any around warranttna review of the order dated 29.04.2005 passed in WP No.1040/2003. 11) The Review Petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 12) Consequently, M.(C) P No.1034/2005 also stands dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge d-_ -..——