Shivdev Sharma v. The General Manager, B H E L Sas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.384 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18620 of 2016 ====================================================== Shivdev Sharma Son of Late Kailash Sharma Resident of Village-Bidhipur, Police Station-Salimpur, District-Patna, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The General Manager, B H E L SAS Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. 2.

Administrative Officer, M/S Purbanchal Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association, 07, Mullen Street, Kolkata-700020. 3.

The Director, M/S Panther Security Services Pvt. Ltd, Kankarbagh, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-04-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for the review of the oral judgment dated 03/08/2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

18620/2016 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah (as his Lordship then was) whereby the above mentioned writ petition has been disposed of under the presumption that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. The Hon'ble court came to this presumption as

Patna High Court C. REV. No.384 of 2018(5) dt.24-04-2025 2/3 the learned Advocate did not appear in the case when the same was called out.

3. The writ Court read as follows:

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The writ petition has been filed for payment of gratuity in terms of the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna.

3. The writ petition having been filed in November, 2016 and today nobody appearing on behalf of the petitioner indicates that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

4. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off.

4. It is contention of the petitioner that contrary to the observation, the payment was not made.

5. A perusal of the review petition would show that the petitioner was employed as Security Guard by M/s

Patna High Court C. REV. No.384 of 2018(5) dt.24-04-2025 3/3 Purbanchal Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association to serve as guard in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (henceforth for short 'the BHEL')

6. In that background, when the employer itself is a private agency, there is/was no question of any direction to it simply because the petitioner was serving in 'the BHEL', the Regional Office, Patna that cannot be any ground.

7. Having clarified the fact, this Court is of the opinion that even otherwise, no case of review is made out. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U