Kerala High Court
Dr. Haritha G.H vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 2 July, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 600 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2025 IN OP (CAT) NO.22 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
DR. HARITHA G.H,AGED 33 YEARS
D/O S. HARIKUMAR, RESIDENT OF MULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
M.S.NAGAR - 89 B, NEAR VELUNTHARA HATCHERY,
KALLUMTHAZHAM PO, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, CIG MARG, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PIN - 110002
2 THE JOINT DIRECTOR (MA)
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP
BHAVAN, CIG MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
3 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
ESIC HOSPITAL, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691505
SRI.T V AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESIC
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2025, THE
COURT ON 02.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845
ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the respondent in O.P.(CAT)No.22 of 2025, seeking review of the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the original petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No.55 of 2025 filed by the review petitioner seeking an order to quash Annexure A11 memorandum and also an order directing the Employees State Insurance Corporation ('ESIC' for short) to allow her to join the post of Insurance Medical Officer Grade II immediately after completion of her post-graduation course.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner/respondent in the original petition and the learned Standing Counsel for the ESIC.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that this Court allowed the original petition on finding that the Tribunal passed the impugned order without considering the maximum 3 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 time fixed in Ext.P3 official memorandum to permit a candidate to join duty. But Ext.P3 official memorandum dated 09.08.1995 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India is not adopted by the ESIC and hence cannot be pressed into service to hold that the offer of appointment made to the petitioner would lapse automatically after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of appointment. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the ESIC submitted that as per Section 17(2)(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' in short), all the orders and regulations applicable to the employees of the Central Government would apply to the employees of the ESIC also, unless a departure is made from the said rules or orders by the ESIC. No such departure is made in the instant case. Apart from that Regulation 24 in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation 2023, formulated in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 97, read with Clause XXI of sub-section (2) and sub-section (2A) of 4 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 that Section and sub-section(2) of Section 17 of the Act also provides that the rules applicable from time to time to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scale of pay shall apply to the employees of the Corporation in all matters relating to the conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in the said Regulation. Therefore, Ext.P3 is squarely applicable to the ESIC, and hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment that warrants exercising of review jurisdiction.
5. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.
6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
"114. Review-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, 5 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
"1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the 6 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
8. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to 7 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(Underline supplied)
11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
12. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self- evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
13. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex 8 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided".
14. The dictum in Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] is reiterated by the Apex Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. [(2023) 8 SCC 11]. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus:
"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
15. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S., 9 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 J], after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
16. The respondents herein filed O.P.(CAT) No.22 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No.55 of 2025 allowing the review petitioner to report for medical examination on 24.02.2025 and to join duty on 25.02.2025 as Insurance Medical officer Grade II under the ESIC. After considering the rival contentions of the parties on merit, by noting that the order passed by the Tribunal is without considering the maximum time limit fixed in Ext.P3 official memorandum dated 09.08.1995 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India, this Court allowed the original petition and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. Now the review petitioner raises 10 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 a contention that Ext.P3 is not applicable to the ESIC, as it is an order applicable to the employees of the Central Government alone, since it is not adopted by the ESIC. The records would show that such a contention was not taken by the review petitioner at the time of hearing the original petition. However, by bearing in mind the principle that 'justice is not only done but seen to be done', we are inclined to go through the relevant provisions pointed out by the learned counsel, applicable to the instant issue.
17. Section 17 of the Act deals with the appointment and service conditions of staff of the ESIC. Section 17(2)(a), which is relevant as far as the applicability of Ext.P3 order to ESIC, reads thus:
"2(a). The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the members of the staff of the Corporation shall be such as may be specified in the regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay:
Provided that where the Corporation is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or 11 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 orders in respect of any of the matters aforesaid, it shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government: Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to the appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis".
18. Regulation 24 of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation 2023, issued on 12.06.2023 in exercising power conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 97, read with Clause XXI of sub-section (2) and sub-section (2A) of that Section and sub-section(2) of Section 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 reads thus:
"24. Other conditions of service - In respect of all other matters relating to the conditions of service of employees, for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these regulations, the rules applicable from time to time to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay shall apply.
Provided that where the Corporation is of the opinion that it is necessary to make departure from the rules or orders of the Central Government in respect of any matter under this regulation, it shall obtain prior approval of the Central Government".
19. A reading of Section 17(2)(a) of the Act and 12 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 Regulation 24 in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation 2023 would make it clear that all the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scale of pay apply to the employees of the ESIC also, unless a departure is specifically made by the ESIC. In the instant case, no such departure is made by the ESIC. In such circumstances, there is no error in the finding of this Court in the appeal judgment that, as per Ext.P3, the offer of appointment made to the review petitioner would lapse automatically after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of appointment. It appears from the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the instant review petition that the petitioner is now trying to use the review jurisdiction of this Court as an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible under law.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to say that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed 13 RP No.600 of 2025 2025:KER:47845 by this Court in the original petition.
In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE