Hon’ble D1V1s1on Benc - N’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No Q Q mom EVE: a, l/V ARUN KUMAR YADAV S/o Shn Shyam Lal Yadav Aged about 45 Years ' ¥ Employed as Conductor (W/C) Office of the Executlve Engmeer E&M, L/M, Tubewell and Gate Div; Water Resources Department Raipur' ReSi'dihg at : Khusha1pur; Rai’pur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS , ' State 0f Chhattisgarh, V ‘ Through : The Secretary,' ‘ Water‘Resources Department, ‘ D.K‘.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya,' RAIPUR - 492001(C.G.) ' The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Departmen Si-hawa‘Bhawan, Civil Lines, , v- RAIPUR — 492001 (C.G. ‘ ‘ The Chief Engineer, (Mahanadi Godavari Basin) Water Resources Departmen S R P Chowk Shankar Nagar Road RAIPUR 492001(C G) ' ’ The Executlve Englneer E&M L/M Tubewell & Gate D1V No 1 Water Resources Department V RAIPUR— 492001 (C.G,.) . RESPONDENTS v The Divisional JointDire‘ctor, Treasury, ACcounts & Pension City Treasury Office G E Road ,. V a ' Ghadr Chowk RAIPUR 492001((, G ) . h INTIIE HO t, ) t The Sub-D1v1slonal Officeré, , E&M L/M Tubewell and Gate D1V No 1 ' u '. Water Resources Department ’ ' AIPUR — 492001 (C.G.). ’ The Addltlonal Dlrector Dlrectorate of Treasury, Accounts & Pensmn Chhattlsgarh RAIPUR 492001 (CG) REVIEW PETITION FOR REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT DATED 5 07 2010 PASSED IN W“A 165 / 2010 R . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Rev. Petition No. 96/2010 PETITIONER Arun Kumar Yadav VerSus gESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others DB:- HON’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI 85 liON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL JJ REsENT :— Shri B.P. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. M Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Adv. General for the respondents/ State. ORALORDER (16-9—2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J This review petition has been filed against the order dated 5-” -2010 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 165/2010» Brief facts of the case are that the review petitioner had filed the first writ petition numbered as W.P.(S) No. 3503/2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to tile petition afresh, if any, new cause of action arises. Thereafter, another writ petition numbered as W.P.(S) No. 4117/2008 was filed, which was dismissed on 30- 7-2008. Para 4 and 5 of the order dated 30—7—2008 are relevant and quoted below:- "4. On query, as to whether show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the * impugned order, the petitioner admits that show cause notice was issued and reply was filed, but he is again unable to produce a copy Of show cause notice and reply. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed on ground of want of facts that the petition is filed against the same cause of action. The petitioner has already tiled-a petition earlier which stood dismissed as/ / // § \ P new cause of tion arises, secondly for want of material, the case cannot be considered on merit also. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.” . Prayer made in the above W.P.S. No. 41 17/2008 is also relevant and quoted as under:- That, the Hon’ble Court be plesed to set aside the orde passed on 3-4-2008 (P-lO) and 13—6-2008 (P-l 1) in the interest ofjustice. 10.3 “10.2 “The on’ble Court be pleased to pass a dirtion o the respondents to restore the petitioner’s wages from his initia pay scale of Rs. 775—1200/- to corresponding present pay scales of Rs. 2750—4400/- (VPC in the interest of justice.” . Thereafter another writ titi numbered as W.P.S. 4397/2008 ws filed i which the following prayers were made:- “10.2. That, the Hon’le Court be pleased to set aside the adverse orders passed on 3—4-008 (P-lO), 13—6-2008 ,(P—l) and on 2-8-200 (P—14) in the interest ofjustice. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a direction to e respondents t restore the petitioner’s wages from 2550-3200/— to pay scales of Rs. 2750-4400/- in the interest of justice ." But the petitioner in that writ petition filed an application for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the ground that he wants to file additional pleadings, documents, etc. The above application was allowed and above W.P.S. No. 4397/2008 was dismissed as Withdrawn by order dated 28-8-2008 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. .3” ac 4 a rs H ec t l ) 5 peon a n pb 2 l 8 th o 7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition numbered as W.P.S. No. 51 14/2008 in which following reliefs were sought:- “10.2 That, in the interest of justice, the Hon’ble Court be‘ pleased to set aside the following orders:- (a) Orders dated 4.1.2008 (P—3) 8t 3.4.2008 (P—7) passed by Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur. (d) Order dated 13.6.2008 (P—8) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, E/M, LM, Tubewell and Gate, WRD, Raipur.” The above W.P.S. No. 5114/2008 was dismissed vide order dated 5—5-2010 on the ground that the first writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the same relief, for which that writ petition was filed and the second writ petition was not withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Against the order dated 5-5—2010 passed in W.P.S. No. 51 14/2008, the petitioner filed a writ appeal numbered as W.A. No. 165/2010, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5-7‘—2010, against which the instant review petition has been filed. Since the W.P.S. No. 4117/2008 was dismissed by the order quoted above, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, it was not open to the review petitioner to file a fresh petition for the same cause of action. The review petitioner once filed W.P.S.4397/2008 for the same cause of action, but cleverly moved application for withdrawal of the same with liberty to file a fresh writ petition without mentioning the fact in that application that earlier also he had filed writ petition and the W.P.S. No. 4117/2008 was dismissed which was filed for the same cause of action. Therefore, learned Single Judge in usual way allowed the application for withdrawal of the application but it does not mean that the review [X/ / ,/, / petitioner could get beneflt of that order and could file a [fresh writ petition before this Court in the above circumstances. If learned Single Judge would have got knowledge about dismissal of the W.P.S. No. 4117/2008 at the time ‘of allowing the interlocutory application for withdrawal of the writ petition mentioning that he would file a fresh writ petition for the same relief on the basis of additional pleadings, documents, the Court would not have allowed the application. More over the in the affidavit filed in respect of the interlocutory application filed in W.P.S. No. 4397/2008? the review petitioner had mentioned that " ........ In the said Application, nothing has been suppressed, nor made any false and incorrect averments ........ " whereas the fact is that he had suppressed the material fact in the application that his earlier W.P.S. No. 41 17/2008 was dismissed. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 5—5-2010 in W.P.S. No. 5114/2008 was an appropriate order against which the writ appeal was dismissed. 12. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. /,, Sd/- sd/ \ N‘Kisggra‘ 1M. Judge; Q l