On dismissal of the review petition in the absence of the companynsel for the petitioners, a miscellaneous application was filed for modification of the order passed in the review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 23rd February, 2007.
Ram Prakash Shori and the petitioners may be granted all arrears of Pay, retiral benefits and other companysequential benefits with interest 18 per annum.
Disposed of as such.
When the Review Petition came up for hearing on 21st April, 2006, learned companynsel for the petitioners was number present and on the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that numberrelief had been claimed in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No.1, the High Court dismissed the review petition by passing the following order Learned companynsel for the respondent submits that the relief claimed in the review petition is number claimed in the main petition for petitioner No.1.
The appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia, for the following relief Quashing the order number 202 dated 9.7.2002 Annexure Indian Penal Code 3 passed by the respondent No.3 withdrawing the benefits of pay fixation already granted to petitioners Satinder Singh and directing the respondent to step up the pay of the petitioners to that of their junior Sh.
It is against the said three orders of the High Court that these appeals have been filed.
In the written statement companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, Punjab State Electricity Board, and its officers, it was stated in Paragraph 7 that the relief claimed by the petitioner had already been granted.
When the writ petition came up for final hearing the High Court on 23rd September, 2005, disposed of the same by passing the following order In view of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the written statement, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
Subsequently, a review petition came to be filed by the writ petitioners before the High Court claiming that the statement made in paragraph 7 of the written statement, companycerned only the writ petitioner No.2, and without companysidering the case of the respondent No.1 on a separate footing he too was denied relief, although he was number companyered by such statement.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
These three appeals arise out of orders dated 23rd September, 2005, 21st April, 2006 and 23rd February, 2007, relating to Civil Writ Petition No.16811 of 2003 and Review Petitions filed therein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
