HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 122 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application seeking review of our judgment dated 02.09.2025. 3. The applicant, who was respondent No.2 in the appeal appears in person and he says that the Single Judge while allowing the respondent No.1 to continue at Basti till 30.03.2026 with the stipulation that on 01.04.2026 he shall join at Gorakhpur i.e. the place to which he has been transferred, had also provided that in case the State Government makes an arrangement to attach the petitioner or transfer him in District-Basti itself same can also be done so that the son of the petitioner may not suffer. In compliance of the judgment dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Single Judge, the District Supply Officer, Basti passed an order on 18.07.2025 attaching the respondent No.1/petitioner at Basti and allowing the respondent No.2 to continue at the transferred place in District-Basti, however, this fact could not be noticed or brought to the notice of this Court while dismissing the appeal of the State on 02.09.2025 which resulted in an observation that the respondent No.2 shall continue to work at the place where he was posted prior to his transfer vide order dated 15.06.2024 till 30.03.2026 and, on 01.04.2026, he can join at the transferred place i.e. in place of respondent No.1 whereas, in pursuance to the judgment of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : In Person Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Utsav Mishra Ashok Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies,Lko.And 3 Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) Single Judge, it is the respondent No.1 who was attached to District-Basti and the respondent No.2 was allowed to join at his transferred post. 4. We find merit in the submission of applicant seeking review, apparently there is an error in our judgment dated 02.09.2025 to the extent we have observed that the respondent No.2 shall continue to work at the place where he was posted prior to his transfer vide order dated 15.06.2024 as by then he had already joined at District-Basti and the respondent No.1/petitioner had been attached at District-Basti, therefore, the interest of both the persons was protected by the Writ Court. Shri Vikrant Raghuvanshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Utsav Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 are present and on being confronted they could not deny the aforesaid fact. 5. We, accordingly, review our judgment dated 02.09.2025 only to the extent that the respondent No.2 shall not be required to work at the place where he was posted prior to his transfer vide order dated 15.06.2024 rather he will continue at the place where he has joined in pursuance to the order of the District Supply Officer, Basti dated 18.07.2025 so will the respondent No.1 in pursuance to the same order subject to what has been stated in our decision dated 02.09.2025. 6. At this stage, Shri Utsav Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 says that his salary is not being paid. This is an aspect to be seen by the District Supply Officer, Basti who had attached him at District-Basti, let him take a decision in this regard within 15 days'. 7. The review application is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the appeal of course still remains dismissed. September 24, 2025 -Piyush- CMRA No. 122 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench