[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Janaki C vs The Chief General Manager on 26 February, 2026
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
RP NO. 1261 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2024 IN OP (CAT) NO.162 OF 2017
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT:
1 JANAKI C, AGED 75 YEARS
W/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, 1/985, CHEMITTIYAPADAM
NEAR GOVT. POLYTECHNIQUE, KODUMBA P.O.
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678551
*2 SURESH KUMAR P. K., AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE JANAKI C., 1/985, CHEMITTIYAPADAM, NEAR GOVT.
POLYTECHNIQUE, KODUMBA P.O. PALAKKAD 678551
*3 SUMA P. K., AGES 56 YEARS
D/O LATE JANAKI C., 1/985, CHEMITTIYAPADAM, NEAR GOVT.
POLYTECHNIQUE, KODUMBA P.O. PALAKKAD - 678551
*4 SATHISH KUMAR P. K., AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LATE JANAKI C., 1/985, CHEMITTIYAPADAM, NEAR GOVT.
POLYTECHNIQUE, KODUMBA P.O. PALAKKAD 678551
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
2
*5 RITHIKA AGED 9 YEARS
D/O LATE SURYA, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND SURESH KUMAR
P. K. 1/985, CHEMITTIYAPADAM, NEAR GOVT. POLYTECHNIQUE,
KODUMBA P.O. PALAKKAD 678551
[ADDITIONAL P2 TO P5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
15.01.2026 IN IA 01/2026 IN RP 1261/2025]
BY ADVS.
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
KERALA TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL KERALA CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 GENERAL MANAGER,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BSNL PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
3 THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
BSNL, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
ADMINISTRATION, BSNL, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
BY ADV.
SRI.T.SANJAY, SC, BSNL
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
3
ORDER
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to review the judgment
of this Court dated 16.12.2024 in O.P(CAT) No.162/2017.
2. The review petitioner herein is the respondent in OP(CAT)
No.162/2017 of this Court and the applicant in O.A.No.957/2014 on the
files of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The review petitioner, Janaki
C., commenced her service as an Ayah in the Creche under the Telecom
District Engineer, Department of Telecommunication (DOT), Palakkad, in
1987. Her initial appointment was on a contingency basis. Following the
formation of BSNL in 2000, she was regularized as a Mazdoor in 2001 and
retired in 2008. Despite her two decades of service, she was denied pension
on the grounds that she had less than ten years of qualifying regular service.
3. The claim of the petitioner before the Central Administrative
Tribunal was that 50% of her past casual/contingency service from 1987 to
2000 should be reckoned as qualifying service, along with her 7 years 8
months of regular service, so as to make her eligible for pension. The
Tribunal allowed the claim, relying on the 1993 Casual Labour (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme.
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
4
4. While rendering judgment in OP(CAT). No. 162/2017, this
Court set aside the order of the Tribunal holding that the 1993 Scheme was
inapplicable to DOT employees.
5. The learned counsel submitted that this Court was not
apprised of Government Decision No.2 appended to Rule 14 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972, which expressly provides that 50% of contingency
service will be reckoned towards pension if followed by absorption in
regular service. By virtue of Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, the said
provision applies to BSNL absorbed employees. The learned counsel further
submitted that the omission to bring this statutory provision to the notice of
this Court constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting
review. It is submitted that the Tribunal, while allowing the petition had
expressly referred to the said provision. Hence, the petitioner prays that the
impugned judgment in OP(CAT). No. 162/2017 be reviewed and recalled.
6. Sri. T. Sanjay, learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL has
filed a detailed counter. In the counter, it is stated that the Review Petition is
not maintainable and the review petitioner has not raised his contention
before the Central Administrative Tribunal nor before this Court. The
learned counsel would further submit that the review petitioner is trying to
reagitate the matter in controversy which has already been adjudicated by
this Court under the guise of a review application.
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
5
7. Heard.
8. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to
extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
"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 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
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
6
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment."
"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,
(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."
9. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly
states the circumstances in which the power of review of a decree or order
can be invoked. The instances are;
i. the discovery of new and important matter for evidence,
which could not be produced at the time of passing the decree
or order, or
ii. there are some mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the
record, or
iii. any other sufficient reason.
10. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi1, the Apex Court held as
under:
(1997) 8 SCC 715
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
7
" 9. 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 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'."
11. We find that, while allowing the petition in favour of the
review petitioner, the Tribunal had taken note of the Government Decision
No. 2 appended to Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and had
extracted the same in paragraph 10 of the order. Paragraph 13 of the order
reads as under:
"13. Taking into account of the totality of the circumstance in
this case we have no hesitation to consider that the applicant
ought to have been treated as casual labour under Annexure
A10 scheme and she ought to have been granted temporary
status so as to enable the 50% of her temporary status service to
be count for pension and pensionary benefits. Moreover, the
service aforequoted Government decision for counting half
service paid from contingencies enables her to count 50% of
service rendered by her as Asha from 2.2.1987 till 1.10.2000
i.e. till she was given the post of full time casual mazdoor vide
Annexure A4 order with effect from 1.10.2000."
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
8
12. However, while allowing the O.P. (CAT), this Court did not
have the occasion to consider the implications of Government Decision No.
2. In our considered view, the omission to advert to the said provision has
resulted in a failure of justice and constitutes an error apparent on the face of
the record. This Court also did not examine the relevant provisions of the
CCS (Pension) Rules, which stand extended to BSNL employees by virtue
of Rule 37A of the CCS (Pension) Rules. As a matter of fact, Rule 37A
directly governs the case of the review petitioner.
13. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that this Review
Petition deserves to be allowed.
In the result,
The Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 16.12.2024
is reviewed and recalled. OP(CAT) No. 162/2017 is restored to file. Post
the matter as per roster.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
2026:KER:17159
R.P.No.1261/2025 in OP(CAT) 162/2017
9
Sbna/
APPENDIX OF RP NO. 1261 OF 2025
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
DR. SREERAM SANKAR, PHYSICIAN AND JUNIOR
CONSULTANT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD DATED
28.8.2025
