Hans Raj Arora v. District Red Cross Society Jalandhar

  
 

   
 

    
!   
 " #

"   

$ %

$&'

() %'* + (

 ,,  $ +
$- .(.$ ,,,'& & ( '.

/+, 0'

+&.

*&
'% .(++

1(* '&23

$4$ %0$.

,,,
'+5( %'

& 
"

67 "
,

1 8 "   

 


  


 

 


 ! "
 
#$ !


%

& ' 
  


(

# ) 
  

   
 *  !+"

8 " 

,:.$4;

"  ,

 
 
-

. 

 

  '



/


 


!

!

!
 
-/
01- 2
3

$4

 !!




!

!
 
-/
01-

.5
.

6 4  !!+

7

 
5


 
 5

)
  


!

!

!



!

!

 8



"   

,
 
 
-

. 



65 
  $4

  

 /

*4

/

'

)


 0 

7

 
5


 
 5

)


 /

*4

/

'

)


 

1.

The present application has been filed for review of the order dated 04.10.2013 on the ground that same was passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the applicant-petitioner and in absence of representation on behalf of the applicant-petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that on 04.10.2013 since there was no representation on behalf of the applicant-petitioner, therefore, in absence of the same the writ petition filed by the applicantpetitioner was decided on merits. He further submits that the said writ petition was dismissed only on the ground that there is no material to suggest that the respondent-society was bound by Civil Services Rules after having adopted the same, whereas the respondent being a society had adopted Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 which are applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab and no separate rules framed by the society governing the conditions of services of the employees. Learned counsel has referred to said rules annexed as Annexures A-3 and A-4. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not disclosed in the review application that he was retired prematurely on 06.04.2005 at the age of 55 years and the said order was challenged by way of filing CWP-6355-2005, wherein also he had taken the similar plea of applicability of Punjab Civil Services Rules and respondent denied the same saying that said rules were never adopted. Consequently the said writ petition

 was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2017 (Annexure R-1/1) and thereafter, even the SLP bearing No.(C) 2391-2008 filed against said order was also dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure R-1/2). 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties carefully and perused the case file.

5.

The applicant-petitioner has concealed the fact of filing the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No. 6355 of 2005 and dismissal of the SLP thereto against the judgment passed in the said writ petition, where even similar plea had already been rejected by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6.

Moreover, the jurisdiction in review is limited. As it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record. 7.

Keeping in view the fact that learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has failed to point out in the instant case that if there is any error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, no ground is made out to review the order dated 04.10.2013 and the review application is accordingly dismissed.

: 8 " ;

 ,,   


 8'9 
 :
& 
# -
 : &