Allahabad High Court
Keshwanand Dwivedi vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 19 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140710
Judgment Reserved on 13.8.2025
Delivered on 19.8.2025
Court No. - 5
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 265 of 2025
Applicant :- Keshwanand Dwivedi
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. None present on behalf of respondents.
2. This review application is filed on behalf of the review applicant to review the order dated 22.7.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed by following order:
"1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
2. This writ petition was earlier dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.2.2019 and was later on restored on 15.11.2019.
3. This is the second round of litigation.
4. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing of Writ Petition No.15929 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.2.2015 to consider the claim of the petitioner.
5. Claim of the petitioner was considered, however, his representation for grant of permission was rejected by impugned order dated 31.3.2015 on ground that petitioner's appointment was temporary in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Ltd.
6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has rightly referred a recent judgment passed by this Bench in WRIT- A No.- 46032 of 2017, Hriday Narain Pandey And 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025:AHC:117621, wherein in similar circumstances, claim of the petitioners therein was rejected.
7. Petitioner has not come up with a case that he was absorped in any other Government Service. No reason exist to take any other view than taken in Hriday Narain Pandey (supra), therefore, no case is made out for causing interference in the impugned order.
8. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed."
3. Before considering the submissions of review applicant, it would be relevant to reiterate the scope of review as reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr, (2024) 2 SCC 362. Relevant paragraph 16 of it is reproduced hereinafter:
"16.The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1.A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2.A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3.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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4.In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
16.5.A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6.Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7.An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8.Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
4. Learned counsel for the review applicant vehemently urged that case of the review applicant was wrongly decided in terms of judgment passed in WRIT-A No.-46032 of 2017, Hriday Narain Pandey And 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025:AHC:117621, whereas his case squarely falls within the purview of judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in WRIT- A No. 61107 of 2013, Gorakh Nath Pandey & 15 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, Neutral Citation No.2016:AHC:65037, which was upheld upto the Supreme Court.
5. I have considered the above submissions.
6. In Hriday Narain Pandey (supra), this Court has considered and distinguished the facts of the case passed by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shiv Jag Sharma & Ors, 2023:AHC:155290:DB, wherein judgment passed in Gorakh Nath Pandey (supra) was considered and followed, therefore, Court has distinguished Gorakh Nath Pandey (supra) on law as well as on facts of the present case also in the order under review.
7. Court has taken note of two relevant facts which was part of the impugned order that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Ltd. and he was not absorped, therefore, it is not a case where there is an error apparent on the face of record. Under the garb of a review application, even an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected. On this ground only review application can be rejected. However, since other arguments were raised during hearing, therefore, Court deals with the same on facts also. Relevant paragraph 20 of the judgment in Hriday Narain Pandey (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:
"20. So far as judgment of Shiv Jag Sharma and others (supra) is concerned, it was in regard to grant of pension to retired employees of U.P. Rajya Cement Nigam Ltd. at Churk and petitioners therein were already absorbed in State services, whereas petitioners herein were admittedly not absorbed, therefore, facts of Shiv Jag Sharma and others (supra) are distinguishable and it are not applicable to present case. "
8. It is the consistent case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Junior Clerk on Work Charged Establishment on a consolidated pay.
9. It is further case of review applicant that he was promoted to Clerk 4th Grade vide order dated 1.10.1980, however, it is not supported by any document and as such he remained as a work charged employee, therefore, by impugned order, in the writ petition, the petitioner was neither considered on deputation, nor he was absorped, therefore, there was no reason to grant him pension.
10. The above facts distinguished the case of petitioner from petitioners of Gorakh Nath Pandey (supra) and Shiv Jag Sharma (supra), where they were already absorped and, therefore, question of pension was determined in their favour, therefore, Court is of the opinion that there is no error apparent on record in the order under review on facts as well as on law.
11. Accordingly, Review Application is rejected.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025
SB
