Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Mujalde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8486




                                                               1                                RP-412-2025
                              IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                     ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
                                                 REVIEW PETITION No. 412 of 2025
                                                     RAJESH MUJALDE
                                                          Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                   Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/state.

                                                                   ORDER

The present review petition is filed under section 114 and Order 47 of CPC arising out of order dated 05.08.2024 passed in WP No.28461/2021.

2. The petitioner has been reinstated in service by the respondent but he has not been paid consequential reliefs.

3. This order passed the following order:-

"4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondentNo.2 to take a fresh decision keeping in view the subsequent circular dated02.11.2019 (Annexure P/10) filed along with the rejoinder and judgment passed in the case of Appusingh (supra) within a period of two months from the date of filing copy of the order passed) today."

4. Upon perusal of the said direction, this court finds that the court had remanded the matter to the competent authority to take a fresh decision keeping in view of the subsequent circular dated 02.11.2019 filed alongwith the rejoinder and judgment passed in the case of Appusingh (supra).

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8486

2 RP-412-2025

5. Since by the said order, the matter was remanded to the competent authority and thereafter the petitioner has been reinstated. In the review petition, he cannot claim the backwages.

6. A reference may be made to the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320, wherein it is held that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma VS. Arbibam Pishak Sharma reported in 1979 (4) SCC 389, wherein the court clarified the ambit of the review jurisdiction and held that a decision cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous on merits, since that would fall squarely within the

province of a court exercising appellate jurisdiction.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to resort to the remedy available to him in accordance with law.

8. It goes without saying that the petitioner will have the remedy to resort to the remedy available to him in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid limited observation, the present review petition stands dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

Sourabh