Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45557-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 39 of 2025 Applicant :- Dharmraj Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary (Ayush Department) Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the review- petitioner and Sri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the instant review-petition, the review-petitioner seeks review of judgment and order passed by this Court dated 17.01.2025. The review-petitioner submits that he had preferred a writ petition claiming his right to continue in service till the age of 60 years and the Writ Court by means of judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed in W.P. No. 9739 (SS) of 2018 permitted the review-petitioner to discharge his duties in the department till attaining the age of retirement at 60 years. 3. It is submitted that the State-Authorities had preferred an intra- court appeal bearing No. 221 of 2019 which came to be dismissed on 17.01.2025. However, in para 33 of the judgment dated 17.01.2025, the Court observed that the review-petitioner would be entitled to all financial and post retiral benefits treating him to have retired at the age of 60 years and consequences would follow. The Court further provided that since the writ petitioner did not work beyond 30.06.2018, hence, he shall not be entitled for any salary for the period 30.06.2018 to 30.06.2020. 4. It is submitted that first and foremost the aforesaid observations appears to have been made against the record, inasmuch as, the service of the writ-petitioner was not pensionable. He had challenged the action of the respondents retiring him at the age of 58 years whereas other persons in the same department were being retired at the age of 60 years and it is the salary for the period 30.06.2018 to 30.06.2020 which was the subject matter and the only remuneration to which the writ-petitioner was entitled. Hence, once the appeal of the State had been dismissed, the relief which was granted by the learned Single Judge could not have been taken away by the impugned judgment dated 17th January, 2025 in appeal, hence, the review. 5. Sri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that providing the salary for the period 30.06.2018 to 30.06.2020 after having recorded a categorical finding in the judgment dated 17.01.2025 that the writ-petitioner would not get the salary would amount to re-opening the matter on merits which is not permissible in review, consequently, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 7. Apparently, what is not disputed between the parties is the fact that the review-petitioner was not in a pensionable job. The basic grievance raised by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that similarly situate persons in other departments were retiring at the age of 60 years whereas the review-petitioner was not granted the said benefit and was sought to be retired at the age of 58 years. 8. Taking note of the submissions of the respective parties, the writ petition was allowed and the writ petitioner was permitted to the salary for the period 30.06.2018 to 30.06.2020 as he had retired during the pendency of the writ petition. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, it was the State who had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by means of judgment dated 17.01.2025. Once the appeal was dismissed, the necessary consequence was that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld and the directions to pay the salary as provided in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.05.2019 in W.P. No. 9739 (SS) of 2018 could not be varied or modified. 10. To that extent, the submissions of learned counsel for the review-petitioner appears to be correct that the observations made by this Court providing that the review-petitioner shall not be paid salary for the period 30.06.2018 to 30.06.2020 was superfluous and apparent on the face of record. 11. Moreover, once it is admitted to the State-respondents (herein) that the post of the review-petitioner was not pensionable, thus, the directions in the judgment dated 17.01.2025 that the review- petitioner would be entitled to all necessary financial and post retiral benefits treating him to have retired at the age of 60 years also cannot be correct as the Court could not provide post retiral benefits when it was not admissible to the writ-petitioners. 12. Thus, we are of the view that the judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 deserves to be reviewed and para 33 of the judgment shall be recasted. 13. Accordingly, para 33 of the judgment dated 17.01.2025 shall after review will now read as under:- "For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.9739 (S/S) of 2018 is affirmed. It is noticed that during the pendency of the intra court appeal the writ petitioner has attained the age of 60 years and retired hence he is entitled to all the necessary financial and post retiral benefits treating him to have retired at age of 60 years. Consequences to follow. However, it is made clear that since the writ petitioner did not work beyond 30.06.2018, hence he shall be entitled for his salary for the period 30.06.2018 to 30.06.2020 as provided in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9739 (S/S) of 2018. Subject to the aforesaid, all dues of the writ petitioner be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of this order. Costs are made easy. " 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present review-petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and para 33 of the judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 shall stand re-casted. This order shall be read along with the principal order dated 17.01.2025 and whenever a certified copy of the judgment and order passed in intra-court appeal No. 221 of 2019 is issued, then the office shall issue the copies of both the principal order dated 17.01.2025 as well as this order dated 01.08.2025 in the present review-petition. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Asheesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench