High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/8119/2015

Raj Kumar Anand v. Union Of India & ORS

2017-09-20Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli2 pages

$~SB-2.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8119/2015 RAJ KUMAR ANAND ..... Petitioner Through:

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Mr.

Risabh Sahay, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for R-7&8 Ms.

Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv for DoE

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 20.04.2018 C.M. Appl. No.15562/2018 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

R.P. No.167/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.15561/2018 Respondent nos.7 and 8 has preferred the present review petition to seek review of our judgment dated 20.09.2017 along with the aforesaid application to seek condonation of delay of 152 days. In the review petition, the review petitioner has stated that SLP (C) No.5103/2016 was pending

before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sidharth Shankar Roy & Ors. (mentioned in the review petition as Sidharth Shankar Roy & Ors. v. Union of India).

Counsel for the review petitioner has tendered before us the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in C.A. No.1350/2018 titled Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Rama Raju & Ors. and other connected civil appeals, including C.A. No.1350/2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.5103/2016.

The submission of the learned counsel is that in view of the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to Rule 7 of the notification dated 29.08.2008, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure with regard to the manner of fixation of pay under the 6th Pay Commission, our judgement dated 20.09.2017 calls for review. Firstly, we may observe that the passing of a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court cannot be considered as a ground to seek review of our judgment delivered earlier. The same constitutes a subsequent development. In any event, we have perused the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Supreme Court and, in our view, the same has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The petition and the application are, accordingly, dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J REKHA PALLI, J APRIL 20, 2018 sr