Jharkhand High Court
The Principal Secretary vs Dr Sheo Jag Prasad on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 42 of 2019
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education
and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
Doranda, OP.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Secretariat Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Dr Sheo Jag Prasad, son of Late Ram Krishna Prasad, Resident of
Near Combined Building, Swami Sahjanand Nagar, Luby Circular
Road, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
... ... Opp. Party
2. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, State of
Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi
3. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Deptt. of Health, Medical
Education, Family Welfare, Ranchi
4. Joint Secretary, Deptt. of Health, Medical Education, Family
Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Principal, Patliputra College & Hospital, Dhanbad
6. Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... Proforma Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :
---
06/14.10.2022 This Civil Review Petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"For review and modification of the order dated 18.7.2016
passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 4981/2014 by Hon'ble
Mr. Justice H. C. Mishra (Dr Sheo Jag Prasad vs State of
Jharkhand) so far as it relates to the direction for payment of
monetary benefits to the petitioners of 1st ACP granted by
notification dated 9.6.2005 because the said notification dated
9.6.2005 petitioner was granted I ACP in the pay scale of Rs
10,000-325-15200 whereas petitioner being non gazetted
employee would have been entitled for Ist ACP in the next higher
pay scale of Rs 5500-9000 as granted by notification dated
9.6.2005 though petitioner having not passed departmental
accounts examination as prescribed under Rule 157 of the
Boards Miscellaneous Rules was otherwise not eligible even for
Ist ACP as such it is prayed that the order dated 18.7.2016
passed in WPS No. 4981/14 may be modified/reviewed only the
extent so far as it relates to the monetary benefits of Ist ACP
granted by notification 09.6.2005."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that order
under review dated 18.07.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4981 of 2014
suffers from error apparent on the face of record. He submits that by
the order under review, the monetary benefit of 1st ACP, which was
wrongly granted to the writ petitioner vide notification dated
09.06.2005, has been sustained by stating that the same was never
withdrawn by the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going
through the order under review, this Court is of the considered view
that the aforesaid plea which has been raised by the learned counsel
for the review petitioners seeking review does not come within the
scope of review jurisdiction.
4. It is not in dispute from the side of the review petitioners that
the writ petitioner was granted 1st ACP vide notification dated
09.06.2005 which was not withdrawn though the review petitioners
claim that it was wrongly granted. It is not in dispute that the writ
petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. This court is of the
considered view that the aforesaid finding recorded in the order under
review does not suffer from any error of record, much less an error
apparent on the face of the record.
5. From the perusal of the prayer in the review petition it appears
that the review petitioners are seeking a modification/review only to
the extent so far the order under review relates to the monetary
benefits of 1st ACP granted to the writ petitioner vide notification
dated 09.06.2005.
6. The Scope and ambit of Review of orders passed in writ
jurisdiction is also governed by principles enshrined in Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of
an appeal. A perusal of Order XLVII Rule 1 shows that review of a
judgment or an order can be sought: (a) from the discovery of new and
important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such
important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at
the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or
any other sufficient reason.
8. No new fact or material has been acquired by the review
petitioners after decision given in the judgment under review. The
ground for review on account of any other sufficient reason is not
open ended and the same is analogous to the other specified grounds.
9. Review is by no means an appeal in disguise. The power of
review is not analogous to the appellate power. An error, which is not
apparent, and has to be detected by a process of long drawn arguments
and reasoning, cannot justify the court to exercise its power of review.
10. This court is of the considered view that there is no scope under
review jurisdiction to consider the consequences of not withdrawing
the notification dated 09.06.2005 which is said to have been wrongly
issued in favour of the writ petitioner coupled with the fact that the
writ petitioner has already retired from service.
11. This court is of the considered view that the review petitioners
have not been able to make out any ground for interference under
review jurisdiction of this court in the order under review.
12. Accordingly, this civil review petition is hereby dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
