“The scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal,” with this pointed declaration, the Jharkhand High Court sets the stage for a compelling legal battle over pay parity and retrospective policy changes by the employer. This ruling, dissecting the delicate balance between administrative amendments and employee’s rights, promises to captivate with its intricate reasoning and far-reaching implications. Dive into the details to uncover how the Court navigated a contentious dispute regarding the claim of vested rights of an employee in case of policy changes prior to his appointment.
Brief Facts:
The case concerns candidates selected under a 2018 advertisement by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for Compounder and Pharmacist posts with a grade pay of Rs. 2800/-. Though declared successful in 2019, their appointments were delayed. Meanwhile, a 2019 amendment reduced the Compounder’s grade pay to Rs. 1900/-. Appointed in 2023 at the reduced pay, the petitioners challenged the amendment as arbitrary and violating equal pay for equal work, arguing identical roles and qualifications with Pharmacists. After the dismissal of their writ petition, they filed a review, contending the amendment should not apply retrospectively.
Contention of Petitioner:
The petitioners argued that the advertisement clearly stipulated a grade pay of Rs. 2800/- for both Compounders and Pharmacists, with identical eligibility criteria and selection processes. They contended that the amendment reducing the grade pay to Rs. 1900/- for Compounders, enacted after the selection process, was arbitrary and should apply prospectively, not affecting their entitlement to the advertised pay scale. They further submitted that Compounders and Pharmacists perform similar duties, and the reduction violated the principle of equal pay for equal work. Additionally, they highlighted that a 1987 government order re-designated Compounders as Pharmacists, entitling them to the same benefits and that other states like Bihar and Orissa provide a higher grade pay of Rs. 2800/- or more for similar posts. The petitioners also possessed Pharmacist certificates from the Pharmacy Council of India, reinforcing their claim for parity.
Contentions of Respondent:
The counsel countered that the pay scale was reduced prior to the petitioner’s appointment, and thus, the petitioners were fully aware of the revised grade pay of Rs. 1900/- when they joined. They argued that the petitioners, having accepted the reduced pay scale upon joining, could not subsequently challenge it. The counsel emphasized that the dismissal of the writ was justified, as the petitioners had no accrued right to the higher pay scale since no appointment letters were issued before the amendment. The counsel further contended that the review petition was an attempt to reargue the case, which is impermissible, and that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to file an appeal, not seek a review.
Observations of the Court:
The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, meticulously examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in the context of the petitioners’ challenge to the reduced pay scale for the post of Compounder.
The Court emphasized that the power of review is narrowly confined to specific grounds, namely, the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. Further, the Court relied on precedents such as Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, where it was held that “the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal,” and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati 2013, which clarified that “a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.”
The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the amendment to Rule 16(ii) of the Jharkhand Para Medical Staff Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2016, reducing the grade pay from Rs. 2800/- to Rs. 1900/-, should not apply retrospectively, while reasoned that no vested right had accrued to the petitioners at the time of the amendment, as “the question of accrued vested right will have the paramount bearing in the present case and the accrued right will be said to be there the moment the letter of appointment will be issued.” Since the pay scale was reduced before the issuance of appointment letters, the petitioners lacked the legal standing to challenge the amendment.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s acceptance of the reduced pay scale upon joining estopped them from questioning it subsequently, and stated, “once the reduced pay scale has been accepted, it is not available for one or the other petitioners to turn around and question the said decision.” It was also underscored the principle that a review cannot be used to reargue matters already adjudicated or to substitute an alternative view, as per Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, which held that “a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the review petition and held that no error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence unavailable earlier justified exercising review jurisdiction.
Case Title: Md. Faiyaz Ahmad and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Review No. 107 Of 2024
Coram: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Indrajit Sinha And Ajay Kumar Sah
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Sahbaj Akhtar
Picture Source :
