1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Civil Application No.120 of 2009 In Review Petition Stamp No.8960 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.9448 of 2003 The Union of India & ors. Applicants Vs. Vishwambhar Murlidhar Khole Respondent Mr.D.A.Dube h/f. Mr.Avinash Kango for applicants. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H. BHATIA,JJ. September 10, 2009. P.C. 1. We had granted Rule on 14/8/2009 and made returnable after three weeks. The applicants were granted Hamdust and we are now informed that the respondent is no more. 2. This application prays for condonation of delay caused in filing Review Petition under Stamp No.8960 of 2009 so as to recall the order passed in Civil Application No.2926 of 2006 2 filed in Writ Petition No.9448 of 2003. Writ Petition No.9448 of 2003 was dismissed for default as per the conditional order dated 13th July 2004. Civil Application No.2926 of 2006 was filed for restoration of the said writ petition but after two years and seven months. We had observed in our order dated 1/12/2006 that the application was misconceived and if the conditional order was not complied with, the remedy of the applicants may be somewhere else. Even the second restoration application termed as Review Petition is filed belatedly and i.e. after two years. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished in support of the prayer for condonation of delay of two years and on that ground itself the application could have been rejected, more so when the respondent is not alive now. 3. However, in view of the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench to the respondent in the impugned order in Writ Petition No.9448 of 2003, we have gone through the facts in more details. We have noted that the Tribunal by common judgment dated 1/6/1998 allowed three Original Applications i.e. O.A. Nos.180, 258 and 360 of 1998 The present respondent was applicant no.1 in O.A. No.180 of 3 1998 and the said common judgment had received finality in respect of other applicants and it is not known why the common judgment was challenged only in respect of the present respondent. Even otherwise we have noted that the Tribunal had directed to re-classify the applicants as UDCs with effect from 1/1/1947 in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Application No.4201 of 1985 decided on 4/11/1987. The Tribunal further directed that arrears of pay could be restricted only to 50 per cent. It was obvious that the respondent and the other applicants had retired in 1975 and thus the claim based on the Supreme Court’s order was dragged on for decades onwards. It is also pertinent to note that after the Tribunal pronounced the common judgment dated 1/6/1998, the applicants filed Review Petition which was dismissed on 28/5/2002. 4. For all these reasons we do not find any substance in the prayer made in this application. Hence the application is rejected. 5. Before we part with the case we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, DHQ, New Delhi 4 to ensure that in case the arrears of payment as directed by the Tribunal have not yet been released, the same shall be done on or before 31st October 2009. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)