ORDER
B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This review petition has been filed by the applicant Uda Ram against the judgment and order dated 21-8-1997 passed in the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/1989 on the ground that the relief claimed by him in the writ petition had not been considered as the petitioner had claimed the benefit not only of regularisation but also challenged the order dated 20-1-1989 by which the services of the petitioner on ad hoc basis had been terminated and he also claimed the benefit of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
2. None is present for the applicant-petitioner. Heard Mr. N. M. Lodha and Mr. M. S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The said judgment and order dated 21-8-97 was passed after hearing Mr. R. S. Saluja, learned counsel for the applicant petitioner and it was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court earlier in other connected writ petition. It has been pointed out by Mr. Lodha that the relief claimed by the applicant for equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution was also a subject-matter of the other writ petition i.e. 2175/1988 to which petitioner was also a party as his name appeared in the schedule. Petitioner in the writ petition No. 311/1989 had explained that he was a party in the earlier writ petition No. 2175/1988 and the relief claimed in the said writ
petition was as under :
“The respondents be directed to pay the workmen, named in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’, the salary in a regular pay scale………..”
4. Thus, the serious objection taken by the respondents is that petitioner cannot file two writ petitions for the same relief particularly when the earlier writ was pending. This submission is full of substance. Even if the earlier writ petition is not pending and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn, public policy which is being reflected in the principle enshrined in Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that successive writ petitions cannot be filed for the same relief. This view is fortified by a catena of judgments of Courts i.e. Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987, SC 88; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority, (1994) 6 SCC 97 : (1994 AIR SCW 5155); Khacher Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1995 All 338. In all these cases, it has been held that filing successive writ petitions for the same relief before a Court amounts to sheer abuse of the process of the Court.
.5. Even if a party does not pray for the relief in the earlier writ petition, he cannot file a successive petition claiming same relief, which he ought to have claimed in the earlier one, as it would be barred by the principle enshrined in Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (Vide Commr. of Income-tax v. T. P. Kumaran, 1996 (10) SCC 561 and Union of India v. Punnilal, 1996 (11) SCC 112). In the instant case, petitioner had already claimed the same relief in writ petition No. 2175/88. The said petition has also been disposed of and no argument was made for this issue either in the earlier petition, nor in the subsequent one at the time of hearing by the counsel appearing for applicant-petitioner. It is difficult to understand how the review petition is maintainable as the case certainly does not fall within the ambit of principle enshrined in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A party may raise various points in the petition but if all of them are not agitated at the time of hearing, the Court is under no obligation to decide all the issues taken in the petition. The Court is not supposed to find out all the issues involved in a given case, conduct full-fledged research on them and then decide all of them on merit. Rather, it is not permissible for the Court to deal with such
issues as other party could not have been in a position to reply the submissions so raised by the Court suo motu. The principle or fairness, equity, justice and good conscience requires that other party must be given an opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted on a particular issue and if an issue not agitated by a party at the time of hearing is dealt with by a Court, it may cause grave injustice to the other party. This view stands fortified by a judgment of nine Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339 : (AIR 1997 SC 2847).
6. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if point raised and agitated, is not dealt with by the Court in its judgment, the appropriate course for a party is to file a review petition before the same bench. In Union of India v. N. V. Phaneendran, (1995) 6 SCC 45, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where various contentions had been raised and the Court/Tribunal does not deal with some of them because the same were not agitated at the time of hearing, it does not warrant remittance to the same Court for rehearing for review by such a party. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 662.
7. In the instant case, Mr. R.S. Siluja, advocate, had appeared and argued the matter for the applicant petitioner. The review petition has been filed by other counsel, namely Mr. J.K. Kaushik and Mr. B .M. Kayamkhani, who did not appear at the time of the hearing of the review petition nor anybody asked for adjournment of the case on any ground on their behalf. Dismissal of the application in default would give one more opportunity to such a crafty litigant to move an application for recall of the order of dismissal, on some manufactured pretext/ground. It is not fair to the court to change a counsel and file are view petition because the counsel engaged for filing the review petition may not be aware of what had transpired in the Court while deciding the petition. It may amount to embarrassment to the Court to hear the grievance of a party, which has no basis and where a party does not furnish any material to substantiate the grounds taken in the review petition. The conduct of such a party is reprehensible and deserves not only to be
deprecated but censured. A litigant cannot be permitted to drag the Court in such a manner and force it to decide the case in a particular manner he wants. This Court expresses us grave concern over the procedure adopted by the applicant for redressal of his grievances. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 1 JT SC) 486, the Apex Court has observed as under
“Once an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed, that too by the Advocate on record who neither appeared nor was a party in the main case. It is salutary to note that Court spent valuable time in deciding the case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become in recent time, a practice to file such review petition as a routine, that too with change of counsel. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed. This practice of changing the Advocate and filing repeated petition should be deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of Jaw and salutary healthy practice. ………….. The application is dismissed
with costs of Rs. 20,000/- as it is an abuse of process of Court in derogation of healthy practice.”
8. In Dr. B.K. Subba Rao v. M.K. Parasaran (1976) 7 JT (SC) 265, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wished. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.”
9. Even on merits, there is no substance in the averments made in the review petition.
10. In State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 10 JT (SC) 876: (AIR 1997 SC 1788), the Apex Court has held that daily rated workers cannot be treated as on par with persons in regular service and they cannot be paid the minimum of the regular pay scale. However, if they are working for a long time, they can be considered for regularisation in a proper policy scheme is already there and applicant cannot claim the minimum regular pay scale. At the most, it can be held that the order of termination dated 20-1 -1989 may be
bad as he was appointed on 2-1-1989 on a tenure post for a period of three months. The natural corollary of his appointment order would be that his tenure as ad hoc employees would have come to an end on 1 -4-1989 but such a trivial issue does not require consideration at such a belated stage. It is settled law that when the appointment is on ad hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person ” holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. (Vide State of Punjab v. Surindar Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1593, Director Institute of Management Development U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070; and State of U.P. v. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 456 : (AIR 1995 SC 768).
11. Thus, in view of the above, this misconceived and frivolous application is dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs* One thousand the said amount shall be recovered from the applicant petitioner Uda Ram by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar and deposited in the account of the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of six weeks from today. A copy of the order be sent to the learned District Judge, Sri Ganaganagar, for compliance.