HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 122 of 2023 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed seeking review of the judgement and order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 6763 of 2023 by which the petition was dismissed on the ground that the claim petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking disposal of his representation which in fact had already been decided on 11.09.2019 that is prior to filing of the writ petition, therefore, there was no merit. 3. On being asked to show the error in the judgement, learned counsel referred to section 4(4) of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976) to contend that once the claim petition had been admitted for considering reliefs claimed therein, it was not open for the opposite parties to consider and decide the representation and as such decision was barred by sub- section 4 of section 4 of the Act, 1976. 4. We have perused the said provision, it provides, where a reference has been admitted by the Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules or regulation or any contract as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject mater of such reference pending immediately before such admission shall abate, and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules, regulations or contract. On a bare reading of it, the bar created by the said provision is in respect of any proceeding under the relevant service rule and regulation or any contract. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Desh Raj .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On being asked to demonstrate as to how the representation, disposal of which was sought before the Tribunal, was referable to any statutory rule, regulation or contract, none could be shown. Besides this, when the prayer was for disposal of the representation which was not referable to any such rule regulation or contract and the same has been decided on 11.09.2019, we fail to understand as to how the judgement dated 12.09.2023, review of which has been sought, can be said to be erroneous. Instead of challenging the said decision, unnecessarily, this review application has been filed. 6. We do not find any ground analogous to the principles contained in the Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with the Rules of the Court for reviewing the order. 7. The application is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Bhanu CMRA No. 122 of 2023 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench