Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Indu Bhushan Bali vs Director General on 5 May, 2025
Bench: Sindhu Sharma, Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1095-DB
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
RP No. 81/2022 in
LPA No. 139/2020
Pronounced on: 05.05.2025
Indu Bhushan Bali .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Petitioner is present.
(Through virtual mode)
V/s
Director General, Sashastra .....Respondent(s)
Seema Bal, SSB, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per: Sindhu Sharma (J)
01. This review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 31.03.2022,
passed in LPA No. 139/2020, titled 'Indu Bhushan Bali vs. Director General,
Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), New Delhi'.
02. The petitioner had filed a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 139/2020
against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 passed in Review Petition No.
31/2020, whereby his review petition was dismissed. Though the appeal was
filed against the rejection of the review petition, the Appellate Court considered
the same as being against not only the dismissal of the review petition but also
the dismissal of the writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 1340/2020.
03. The petitioner, who was working as a Senior Field Assistant (Medics)
with the Sashastra Seema Bal, remained absent for a period of 504 days and his
claim for salary for the period from 01.04.1999 to 20.08.2000 was rejected on
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1095-DB
the principle of 'no work, no pay', vide order dated 16.12.2000, which was
challenged by him in WP(C) No. 1340/2020.
04. The writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 1340/2020, was dismissed vide order
dated 18.08.2020 on the ground that the petitioner had approached the Court
after an inordinate delay of approximately 20 years, as such, was not entitled to
any discretionary relief from this Court.
05. The review petition, i.e., RP No. 31/2020, against the order dated
18.08.2000, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had raised
contentions pertaining to the merits of the writ petition, which were beyond the
scope of review.
06. The learned Appellate Court, while considering the appeal against the
order passed in review on 31.03.2022, considered and decided the appeal by
holding as under:
"8. The petitioner/appellant, who was given assistance through the legal aid, has
preferred to argue the appeal himself. In making his submissions, he has not
touched on any of the relevant points either involved in the writ petition, review
petition or in this LPA rather he made submissions with regard to his termination
from service, grant of disability pension and declaring him to be a person of
unsound mind. These are not the subject matter which are involved in the
present appeal.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, after going through the entire
judgment and order of the writ court as well as the order under review, we find
no substance in this appeal."
07. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 31.03.2022 on the
ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as the
learned Appellate Court failed to consider that the petitioner had earlier
approached this Court by way of SWP No. 2605/1999, when his salary
was stopped by the respondents on the principle of 'no work, no pay'. It is
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1095-DB
submitted that such action was in violation of the petitioner's fundamental
rights and also contrary to the provisions of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
08. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondents could not
withhold the salary of an employee who was suffering from Tuberculosis
(TB), and that the stoppage of salary amounted to harassment, particularly
when he was still undergoing treatment. It is further submitted that the
points of law mentioned and the reliefs sought in the Letters Patent
Appeal (LPA) were not properly considered.
09. It is also submitted by the petitioner that delay and laches should not
defeat the cause of justice. The delay, as such, ought to be condoned in the
interest of equity and fairness and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on
that account. The salary of the petitioner also should have been directed to be
released along with other consequential reliefs. The petitioner has also raised
grievances against the counsels, who according to him, did not effectively
represent his case. It is also averred that there exists no limitation period
which restrains the Court from doing substantial justice, as such, this petition
for review of the judgment be allowed.
10. The grounds on which review is sought and the contentions raised are to
be considered in terms of Rule 65 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999. Rule 65
reads as under:
"65. Application for review of Judgment - The Court may review its judgment or
order but no application for review shall be entertained except on the ground
mentioned in order XLVII Rule I of the Code."
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1095-DB
11. The scope of review, as envisaged under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, is very limited and must be confined strictly to the grounds
enumerated therein. An application for review would lie only if there is an error
apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, the non-
consideration of which would result in a failure of justice. A review cannot
amount to a re-hearing of the appeal, re-appraisal of findings, or re-evaluation
of evidence on record, and identifying errors of that nature would fall within the
ambit of appellate jurisdiction, which the review court does not possess.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in "Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati", (2013) 8
SCC 320, while observing that review proceedings have to be strictly confined
to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
summarized the governing principles as under:
"Summary of the principles:
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable
as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or
could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v.
Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by
this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius *AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520+ to mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles
have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
[(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] . 20.2. When the review will not be
maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing
of the case.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1095-DB
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on
the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for
patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain
of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in
the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negative."
13. In "Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others', (1997) 8
SCC 715, it was held as under:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to 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 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 limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
14. Similarly, in "M/s Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Com.
Ltd.', AIR SCW 2006, 3592, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that:
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned
counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks
the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter
and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review
petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is
settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power
which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate
Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review
can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in
exceptional cases."
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1095-DB
15. The contentions raised in this petition are to be considered in light of the
aforementioned facts and circumstances and the settled position of law. The
submission of the petitioner that the appellate Court failed to consider the fact
that he had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petitions when his salary
was stopped which was a violation of his fundamental rights and Disability Act.
It was also contended that the counsels had not dealt with his case properly and
delay should not come in the way of justice. All these contentions have been
dealt with in the judgment under review.
16. The grounds taken in the present review petition are a repetition of the
earlier submissions and touch upon the merits of the case already adjudicated
upon in the appeal. The same cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction, as
that would amount to an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law. In
fact, the petitioner, under the guise of review, is seeking to re-agitate and re-
argue the questions that have already been addressed and decided.
17. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
grounds raised by the review petitioner do not fall within the limited scope of
review as envisaged under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has not demonstrated any error
apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference.
18. Accordingly, there is no merit in this review petition and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
05.05.2025
Michal Sharma/PS
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
