1 976-RA 148-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 148 OF 2022 IN WP/3671/2018 Ramesh Janardhan Meshram (Died) Through L.Rs. Ujwala Ramesh Meshram And Others .. Applicants Versus Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation Through Its Managing Director And Others .. Respondents Mr. Devidas R. Shelke, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. M. R. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2025. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned advocate for respondents. 2. The applicants are seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated 28.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 3671/2018. This Court by way of an order was pleased to reject the writ petition. In the petition, the relief prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.04.2017 and for release of the amount of gratuity of 1 of 4 2025:BHC-AUG:37208-DB 2 976-RA 148-2022.odt Rs. 8,08,000/- with interest from the date of deduction. It is the case that, the respondent issued notice on 03.12.2015 stating that the petitioner was wrongly given promotional benefits with retrospective effect and thereby the salary was paid to him applicable to such promotional post. There was loss caused to the respondent to the extent of Rs. 8,08,637/-. This Court found that, no case was made out to grant relief and rejected the petition. The present review is filed on the ground that certain facts were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the petition was filed and argued. In spite of due diligence he could not get the knowledge. Subsequently, the applicant came to know that in cases of similarly situated persons the respondent – corporation had withdrawn the action of recovery of the amount. There the benefit came to be given of the promotion and thus, he filed the review application. 3. The learned advocate for the applicants vehemently argued that, the action was taken against the petitioner without following due process of law. No enquiry was held and no opportunity was given before taking action of deduction of the amount. It was necessary at least to issue show cause notice to the petitioner 2 of 4 3 976-RA 148-2022.odt before taking such action. He invited attention of this Court to the orders passed in respect of some other employees. He submits that in their cases also due dates of promotion were given. In case of one Mr. Mhaske such action was proposed of recovery. However, lateron the said order was withdrawn and no recovery was done from the said person. He also relies upon the Government circular dated 25.02.1965 which gives benefit of deemed date of promotion to the person who is wrongly superseded by the juniors in the matter of promotion. He thus submits that, in the present case, this material aspects were not considered by this Court and could not be brought to the notice of this Court. He, therefore, seeks review of the order. 4. The learned advocate for the respondents vehemently opposes the application. He submits that, no case is made out to allow the review application. The review application is devoid of merits. The case of discrimination cannot be considered in the review for the first time. He thus prays for rejection of the application. 5. During the course of argument the learned advocate for the 3 of 4 4 976-RA 148-2022.odt applicants relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Spanco Limited Vs. A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited & anr., 2010 (5) Bom. C.R. 832. This Court in the said case considered the scope of order 47 Rule 1. This Court finds that, the said judgment is of no use to the applicants in the present case. The order and the material which now the applicants have produced on record is of 2014 and 2016 which was very much available when the petition was filed in the year 2018. No case is made out calling for review of the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is not satisfied that the order needs to be reviewed. 6. With this, the review application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 4 of 4