Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Review Petition for Failure to Raise Grievances Timely

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a review petition, citing the petitioners’ failure to raise their grievances at the appropriate stage of the litigation. The bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua and Justice Satyen Vaidya delivered the ruling on 31st May 2023.

The review petition challenged the validity of an office communication issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, H.P., which was earlier upheld by a learned Single Judge. The petitioners argued that the communication violated statutory Recruitment & Promotion Rules. However, the High Court observed that the review petitioners were not necessary parties before the writ court or the appellate court.

Justice Satyen Vaidya, in the judgment, stated, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the review petition on behalf of the review petitioners is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.” The court further highlighted that the petitioners had been aware of the proceedings, including the pending appeals, but chose not to raise their grievances earlier, terming their conduct as lacking objectivity.

The Court emphasized the importance of fairness in the judicial process, stating, “Litigation should not be used as a game of hide and seek.” The bench further noted that the silence maintained by the review petitioners throughout the litigation process led to the dismissal of their petition.

This judgment reinforces the principle that parties in a legal dispute must actively participate and raise their concerns at the appropriate stages of the litigation. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of subsequent review petitions.

Decided on : 31-05-2023

BANDANA KUMARI AND OTHERS vs STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/31-May-23-BANDANA-KUMARI-Vs-State-Himachal-Pradesh-HC-1.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News