IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC REVIEW / RECALL APPLICATION NO. 576 OF 2010 IN Writ Petition (S/B) No. 308 OF 2004 Birendra Singh Malla & others. …Petitioners. Versus Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and others. ……...Respondents. Present: Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the review applicants/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Date of Decision : 26.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants. Even after he read to us Paragraphs 6 and 8 to 10 of the Review Application, we are satisfied that there is no reason recorded therein to show why promotions were made with effect from 1.4.2003, whereas salary was released only from 1.4.2004. Thus viewed, we find no merit in the instant Review Application and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. 2. In view of the fact, that the Review Application itself has been dismissed on merits, it is not necessary for us to pass a formal order condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. 3. Despite the conclusion recorded by us hereinabove, learned counsel for the applicants states, that petitioner no. 3 before the Writ Court, namely, Manoj Rangarh was not granted notional promotion with effect from 1.4.2003 but was promoted only with effect from 1.4.2004, and as such, he is eligible to be paid only for the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner states, that he has no objection, if it is clarified that in case petitioner no. 3 Manoj Rangarh had not been granted notional promotion with effect from 1.4.2003 but was promoted with effect from 1.4.2004, he be paid with effect from 1.4.2004 only. In view of the above, petitioner no. 3, namely, Manoj Rangarh, shall be paid only with effect from the date of his initial notional/substantive promotion. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.07.2010 Rathour