Patna High CourtC. REV./312/2017dismissed

Kartik Lal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-12The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.312 of 2017 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1311 of 2014 ====================================================== Kartik Lal, son of Late Maksudan Sah, resident of village Kharagpur, P.S. Sonbarsa Kacheri (Champaran Kothi), District Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Senior Administrative Officer, All India Institute of Medical Science, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029.

3. The Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science (IGIMS), Sheikhpura, Patna.

4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Indira Gandhi Institure of Medical Science (IGIMS), Sheikhpura.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 12-07-2018 This application has been filed for review/recall of an order passed on 11.07.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1311 of 2014 in the matter of grant of pay scale to the petitioner in comparison to the pay scale applicable to the similar post in All India Institute of Medical Science.

The learned Writ Court and the Division Bench have found that the principle of equal pay and equal wages will not apply in view of the disparity in the Recruitment Rules and the qualifications required for appointment to the post and dismissed the writ petition.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.312 of 2017(4) dt.12-07-2018 2/2 In our considered view, there is no error apparent on the face of record and the grounds raised in the review application are nothing but a challenge to the decision taken by this Court. The principles laid down for review in the case of Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives versus Aravindakshan Nair and ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 692], clearly prohibits the consideration of the matter on the grounds canvassed in this application and, therefore, finding no error apparent on the face of record, the application is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Sunil/- U