Court No. - 14 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 133 of 2024 Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Labour U.P. Lko And 3 Others Opposite Party :- Anand Prakash Singh Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.,Mayankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mayankar Singh Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard. 2. The present review application has been preferred for review of the judgement and order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No.29980 of 2019. 3. Learned counsel for the review-applicant/ respondent in the writ petition i.e. the State Government has submitted that the facts mentioned in Para Nos. 9, 11(i) and 11(ii) are not in consonance with the pleadings made in the writ petition or any of the affidavits filed in the writ petition. 4. It is further submitted that that the petitioner is not a permanent employee in the department. He was given temporary appointment and was never confirmed but in the judgement it has been mentioned that the petitioner has become permanent employee and the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with without following the procedure of law as the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner is permanent employee and without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing as per the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 the impugned termination order has been passed which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, which is contrary to the record of the writ petition. 5. It is further submitted that in Para 11 it has been mentioned that services of the petitioner has been regularized after following due procedure of law which is also not the case either in the writ petition or any of the affidavits as the services of the petitioner was never regularized. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ respondent in the present review application has submitted that even a temporary appointed person is covered within the purview of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 but unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the review-applicant. 7. At the time of arguments the case of petitioner was pressed on the basis that he was a permanent employee which fact does not appear to have been controverted by the State counsel, hence this factual error apparent on the face the record occurred, therefore, the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Writ- A No.29980 of 2019 is hereby recalled. 8. The writ petition is restored to its original number. 9. Office is directed to list the writ petition before the Court concerned for hearing afresh, having jurisdiction entertaining such matter. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 S. Kumar Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench