Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RSA 161/2013
8th July , 2014 ALLAHABAD BANK ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
Through:
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.10608/2014(Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of Review Petition No. 302/2014
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal was disposed of by a detailed judgment on 21.4.2014. Appeal was dismissed. Issue in the appeal pertained to claim in the suit filed by the respondent-employee/Sh. Rajan Malhotra for joining back services on account of finality of judgments in earlier proceedings which held that the employee had not resigned. 2014:DHC:3140
2. I am forced to note that review applications are filed by counsel these days as routine.
3. Matters are heard and detailed judgments are passed. If a person is aggrieved, no doubt that aggrieved person has a right to file an appeal, however, review application can only be on a limited ground of there being an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the statement of the respondent is noted in para 6 of the judgment dated 21.4.2014 that he has not encashed any amount towards provident fund, gratuity etc, and which statement is said to be false and a basis for filing this review petition. The review petition is sought to be supported by a receipt (Ex.DW 1/1) dated 8.7.1995 signed by the respondent.
4. In para-6 of the judgment dated 21.4.2014, besides noting that amounts have not been accepted towards gratuity, provident fund etc by the respondent, it is noted that this specific issue that the earlier judgments do operate as res judicata but would not be binding because the employee/respondent has waived his right by accepting retirement dues was never raised in the pleadings of the appellant-bank, no issue was framed, and therefore no such argument could be raised by the appellant-bank. This was so noted in para-6 of the judgment and the appeal was dismissed.
5. The present review petition is just an endeavour to reargue the appeal which has been heard and dismissed by a detailed judgment dated 21.4.2014, and which judgment also records that the respondent/employee did not press his related appeal RSA 234/2013 for seeking back wages.
6. In view of the above, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition is totally misconceived and is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee positively within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Registrar General can recover this amount as arrears of land revenues.
7. List before the Registrar for ensuring compliance of the order of deposit of costs on 11th August, 2014.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 08, 2014 ib