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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.,
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
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
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
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
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
