RAM PRASAD MAURYA v. STATE PUBILC SERVICES TRIBUNAL THRU. VICE CHAIRMAN JUDICIAL LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
CMRAD/23/2025 · 2025-03-05
Alok Mathur, Brij Raj Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 119033 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 119033 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13819-DB Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 23 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Prasad Maurya Opposite Party :- State Pubilc Services Tribunal Thru. Vice Chairman Judicial Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shambhoo Sharan Lal Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Shambhoo Sharan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By means of present civil misc. review application the applicant has sought to review the judgment and order of this Court dated 17.10.2019 passed in Service Bench No.28424 of
2019. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the petitioner, who was aggrieved by the order of punishment, had filed the claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, which dismissed the claim petition, which was further challenged before the Division Bench of this Court as writ petition no.42428 (S/B) of 2019. 4. This Court after duly examining the contentions of the petitioner and noticing that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, despite the same he did not appear in the disciplinary proceedings and also noticing that the charges were duly proved in the said enquiry did not find legality or error in the order of the Tribunal, consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. 5. After a lapse of more than five years the present civil misc. review application has been filed. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed along with application for review, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner could not approach this Court earlier due to COVID-19 pandemic and also it took time to collect the documents. No other ground has been urged by learned counsel for the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant at length and considering the application for condonation of delay, we noticed that the delay of five years has not been explained by the petitioner apart from stating that during COVID-19 pandemic he could not approach this Court previously.
We further noticed the grounds taken by the petitioner in the said application and we noticed that COVID-19 pandemic had come to an end in the year 2021 and regular functioning of all the wings of the Government commenced and even then the petitioner did not approach this Court within a reasonable period of time of coming to an end of COVID-19 pandemic. 7. The delay is, accordingly, more than three years and no sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the applicant for condonation of the delay. The same deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. Apart from above, we have also considered the submissions of the applicant on merits. 9. From the aforesaid submission we find that no ground has been urged by the petitioner which can demonstrate that there is any error apparent on the face of the judgment of this Court passed on 17.10.2019. 10. Even if the arguments of the petitioner are accepted which are factual in nature, it indicates that he insist to raise certain
fresh grounds to challenge the order of punishment, which is not permissible at this stage. All the grounds to assail the order of punishment were duly taken by the petitioner before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, who considered all the
submissions and rejected the case of the petitioner, and this Court also duly considered the submissions of the petitioner assailing the judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition and upheld the judgment of the Tribunal.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that full opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner in all stages of the proceedings and raising a fresh ground under the garb of a review application is clearly impermissible.
12. For all the reasons aforesaid, the review application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench