2025:UHC:6342-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Special Appeal No.33 of 2025 21st July, 2025 Sanjay Singh ………..Appellant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Naman Kamboj, learned counsel for appellant. Mr. J.S. Bisht and Mr. S.S. chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The learned Single Judge entertained the review application, and the grounds for entertaining the review are recorded in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the order. Upon appreciating the case of the review petitioner, the learned Single Judge observed that the earlier order was contrary to the ruling of the Division Bench rendered in WPSB No. 508 of 2016. In that case, the Division Bench, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilbag Singh v. State of U.P. and 2025:UHC:6342-DB 2 others, (1995) 4 SCC 495, held that the benefit of the 1973 Rules could not be extended beyond 1980, as the Rules were in force for a limited period of five years only. Since the petitioner had admittedly joined the Army in 1993 and was discharged in 2008, he could not have been granted the benefit under the 1973 Rules. 3. In that view, learned Single Judge has been pleased to review the earlier order and recalled the order and posted the writ petition for hearing. The reasoning given is a clear case of the learned Single Judge not having followed the precedent settled by the Division Bench of this Court, following the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. In that view, the error is a patent error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the review application. 5. In view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the 2025:UHC:6342-DB 3 learned Single Judge on the review application. There is no illegality that has been pointed out warranting interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal and the disposal of the writ petition shall not be influenced by the observations made in this appeal. 7. Ordered accordingly. (G. NARENDAR, C. J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 21.07.2025 Mamta