IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C. Review (T) No.37 of 2008 Reserved on :18.11.2010 Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Amar Chand ….. Petitioner Vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.8. Kuldip Singh, J. This review petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by erstwhile Tribunal in OA No.1544/98. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner joined as junior assistant on 23.7.1999. On the basis of order dated 24.12.1999 in OA No.1544/98 filed by respondent No.8 the promotion of petitioner as clerk has been withdrawn and he was promoted as clerk w.e.f. 15.3.1996. The respondent No.8, who was petitioner in OA No.1544/98, was promoted as junior assistant on 21.7.1999. 2. The petitioner was not made a party by respondent No.8 in OA No.1544/98 and he was not aware of order dated 24.12.1999. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… petitioner learnt about the OA No.1544/98 only 28.8.2000 when he received a copy of letter dated 21.8.2000. The petitioner took steps on 30.8.2000 for obtaining copy of order dated 24.12.1999 which was received on the same date. 3. The impugned order whereby review petitioner has been virtually reverted from the post of junior assistant has been passed pursuant to order dated 24.12.1999. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the review petition for reviewing the order dated 24.12.1999 on the ground that OA No.1544/98 suffers from suppression of material facts. The petition was barred by limitation. The respondent No.8 had not challenged the promotion order of his alleged junior. The Original Application was not maintainable without challenging the promotion made to the higher posts. The respondent No.8 had achieved the result by suppression of material facts. The petitioner was not impleaded as party in the Original Application and the order dated 24.12.1999 has been obtained behind the back of the petitioner. The review petition has been filed from the date of knowledge of order dated 24.12.1999. 4. The petition has been contested by respondents No.1 and 2 in which preliminary objections of limitation, maintainability, locus standi and estoppel have been taken. It has been submitted that on the basis of order dated 24.12.1999 respondent No.8 alongwith other officials who were initially engaged on daily wage basis and regularised from different dates were assigned seniority based on deemed date of appointments which resulted in change of seniority and respondent No.8 was entitled to be considered for promotion as clerk w.e.f. 7.10.1989, senior clerk from 11.7.1995 and junior assistant from 22.7.1999. In view of change of …3… seniority the review petitioner had to be reverted and promotion was to be given on the basis of the revised seniority and availability of vacancies. The petitioner was promoted as clerk w.e.f. 15.3.1996. The Corporation has implemented the order dated 24.12.1999. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 24.12.1999 has adversely affected the petitioner who was not a party in OA No.1544/98. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others AIR 1963 SC 1908 on the point that even if, petitioner was not a party in OA No.1544/98 still he has a right to file review petition for reviewing the order dated 24.12.1999 as the said order has adversely affected the petitioner. The review petition was filed immediately when petitioner came to know about the order dated 24.12.1999, hence from the date of knowledge of the order dated 24.12.1999 the review petition is within limitation. 6. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for respondent No.8 has submitted that review petition is barred by limitation and is not maintainable. The delay cannot be condoned. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 24.12.1999. He has submitted that petitioner has no locus standi to file the review petition nor the review petition is maintainable. 7. The petitioner was not a party in OA No.1544/98. It has not been denied by respondents that petitioner came to know about the Original Application only on 28.8.2000. He took steps on 30.8.2000 for obtaining the copy of the Original Application and complete record, …4… thereafter filed the review petition on 4.9.2000. Hence from the date of knowledge the review petition is within limitation. In Shivdeo Singh supra the High Court in the writ petition ordered for cancellation of the allotment. The affected person who was not a party in the writ petition subsequently filed a petition under Article 226 for impleading him as a party in the earlier writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 24.12.1999 has been wrongly implemented. The order dated 24.12.1999 was passed behind the back of the petitioner who was necessary party in the Original Application. The review petition can be allowed on settled principle of error apparent on the face of record. The wrong implementation of order is no ground for reviewing the order. The case of the petitioner is that he was not a party in the Original Application and he is adversely affected by the order dated 24.12.1999. It is not a case of error apparent on the face of record, but a case of wrong implementation of order dated 24.12.1999 as contended on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In the order dated 24.12.1999 there is no specific direction against the petitioner. This being the position the review petition is not maintainable. The right/claim of the petitioner was not determined in OA No.1544/98. The petitioner is at liberty to raise grievance regarding his claim separately in accordance with law. In these circumstances there is no merit in the review petition which is accordingly dismissed. November 19, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge