The Allahabad High Court has held that a review application can still be filed before it after the Supreme Court dismisses a Special Leave Petition (SLP) without giving reasons. It also held that where the Supreme Court keeps a “question of law” open while dismissing the SLP, that question cannot be reopened between the same parties.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, sitting at Lucknow, rejected the objection that the State’s review application was not maintainable. It then dismissed the review on its merits, leaving in place the pension benefits granted to a retired Seasonal Collection Amin.
Background
The employee was appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin in 1986. His services were regularised in 2013, and he retired in 2016. On 13.06.2017, the District Magistrate, Amethi, refused to count his service before 16.01.2013, the date of regularisation.
The State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, set aside that order. It directed the authorities to treat him as a Regular Collection Amin from 05.06.1986 for his retirement benefits, in line with the High Court’s decision in favour of a similarly placed employee, Pratap Narain Pandey.
The State’s writ petition against the Tribunal’s decision was decided against it by a coordinate Division Bench on 30.08.2022. The State then went to the Supreme Court, which dismissed its SLP on 14.08.2023, adding that “the question of law, if any, is kept open.” The State then filed this review application.
Arguments
Senior Advocate H.G.S. Parihar, appearing for the employee along with Advocate S.K. Verma, raised a preliminary objection. He argued that because both the writ petition and the SLP had been dismissed, the State could not maintain a review application.
Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh, assisted by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Vivek Shukla and Standing Counsel Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, argued for the State. He submitted that the writ court had not considered the Validation Act, 2021, under which initial service not rendered as per the rules is not counted for pension. He relied on an earlier review ruling holding that service as a Seasonal Collection Amin is not counted for pension. He argued that because the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open, the review was maintainable.
Review Is Maintainable After SLP Dismissed Without Reasons
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376, the Bench noted that an order refusing special leave does not attract the doctrine of merger.
The Court held that this case fell in the first category set out in Khoday Distilleries: an SLP dismissed without reasons, where there is no merger. It observed, “The rights of the review applicants for instituting the review application undoubtedly is uninterrupted and maintainable.” It rejected the preliminary objection.
No Relief on Merits
On the merits, the Bench noted that Pratap Narain Pandey and other employees of the department had been given the benefit of counting their seasonal service, and that the employee had already received all his benefits, including pension. It asked why he should be deprived of these “at this stage, more particularly when the department has already given all the benefits to him.”
The Court also pointed out that the State had not raised the Validation Act, 2021 before the Tribunal, in the writ petition or before the Supreme Court, and was raising it for the first time at the review stage.
On the question of law kept open, the Bench found that the Supreme Court had gone into the merits before dismissing the SLP, and held, “Therefore, the question of law is not open to be considered in between the same parties, of the S.L.P.” It added, “However, it must open for other parties, in future.”
Outcome
The High Court held that the review application was maintainable, but that the question of law was not open between the parties to the SLP, and dismissed the review application.
Case Title: State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Lucknow & Ors. v. X
Case No.: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 11 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh
Date: 06.11.2026
