[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Sharma vs Gwalior Dugdha Sangha Sahakari ... on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
1 RP-352-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 352 of 2026
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
GWALIOR DUGDHA SANGHA SAHAKARI MARYADIT
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the review petitioner.
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
The instant review petition seeks review and recall of the order dated
23/01/2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.19285/2022 (Gwalior Dugdha
Sangh Sahakari Maryadit vs. Arun Kumar Sharma), whereby the writ petition
filed by the respondent under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 28/06/2022 passed by the M.P. State Cooperative
Tribunal, Bhopal, in F.A. No.141/2014 has been allowed and the order dated
28/06/2022 passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal as well as the
order dated 05/03/2008 passed by the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Gwalior are set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant review petition are as
under:
2.1Late Shri K.K. Sharma was working as a Junior Assistant in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
2 RP-352-2026
Gwalior Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, who died in harness on
30.05.1999. On account of untimely death of his father, the review petitioner
submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 24.06.1999
to the respondent herein. Since the said application was not considered for a
considerable period of time, the review petitioner approached the Dy.
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior in a dispute under Section 64 of
the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, seeking grant of compassionate
appointment.
2.2The Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on the basis of
evidence/material produced by the rival parties, passed an order dated
05.03.2008, thereby directing the respondent to grant compassionate
appointment to the review petitioner on the basis of his educational
qualifications.
2.3Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal
under Section 78(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the
M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, which has been dismissed vide order dated
28.06.2022. Consequently, both the orders dated 28.06.2022 and 05.03.2008
were challenged by the respondent before this Court in W.P.
No.19285/2022.
2.4Apart from other grounds of challenge, one of the grounds of
challenge in the writ petition against the orders passed by the subordinate
authorities was that the dispute filed by the review petitioner under Section
64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, seeking compassionate
appointment was not maintainable, and the mandatory direction to issue an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
3 RP-352-2026
order of compassionate appointment in favor of the review petitioner on the
basis of his educational qualification could have been issued by the Dy.
Registrar without adverting to the specific objection raised by the respondent
as regards non-availability of any vacant post for grant of compassionate
appointment.
2.5The review petitioner herein opposed the writ petition on the
ground that persons similarly situated like him working in other Dugdha
Sangh Sahakari Maryadit have been granted compassionate appointment, and
therefore, he is also entitled for grant of compassionate appointment on the
principles of parity and in the limited scope of interference conferred on this
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the re-appreciation of factual aspects as dealt with by the subordinate
authorities concurrently is not permissible.
2.6This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
appreciation of the material available on record, so also by placing reliance
on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sahakari Vipran
(Marketing) Sanstha Maryadit, Bhurwaha vs. Labour Court Indore and Ors.
(1987) MPLJ 31, held that the dispute filed by the petitioner under Section
64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, being essentially a service matter,
was not maintainable and the remedy available to the petitioner was under
Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, that too within
the period of limitation. However, in order to avoid the objection of
limitation as provided under Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960, the review
petitioner herein withdrew the dispute filed earlier under Section 55(2) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
4 RP-352-2026
Act of 1960 and thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the Dy. Registrar
under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which itself was
not maintainable.
2.7That apart, this Court also considered and relied upon the judgment
delivered by the Apex Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., Civil Appeal No.8842-8855/2022 decided on
03.03.2023, to hold that since the father of the petitioner died on 30.05.1999,
the very object of claiming compassionate appointment after a period of 25-
26 years is over. On the basis of aforesaid considerations, this Court allowed
the W.P. No.19285/2022 vide order dated 23.01.2026.
3. The review of the aforesaid order dated 23.01.2026 has been sought
for by learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner on the ground that
prior to the year 2005, the unamended Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960 provided for raising of any dispute touching the
constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment
of a society or the liquidation of a society. And since, the dispute under
Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was filed by the
review petitioner seeking compassionate appointment prior to the 2005
amendment, the same was maintainable and the order passed by the Dy.
Registrar on 05.03.2008 was well within the jurisdiction vested in him in law
at the relevant time.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner further submits
that the fact that persons similarly situated like the review petitioner working
in other Dugdha Sangh Sahakari Maryadit have been extended the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
5 RP-352-2026
compassionate appointment since was not disputed by the respondent, the
benefit of compassionate appointment ought to have been extended to the
review petitioner and the writ petition filed by the respondent ought to have
been dismissed. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the order dated
23.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.19285/2022 deserves to be
recalled and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
supports the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.19285/2022 and submits that the grounds raised by the review petitioner
in the review petition do not fall within the ambit and scope of review
jurisdiction. The review petitioner under the garb of present review petition is
trying to re-argue the matter on merits, which is not permissible in review
jurisdiction. The order impugned in the review petition does not suffer from
any error apparent on the face of record, and while considering a review
petition, it is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available
on record. Accordingly, respondents' counsel submits that the review petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the grounds raised by
the review petitioner as regards unamended Section 64 of the M.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Vide notification dated 08.05.1994, Section
64(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act was amended and the amended
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
6 RP-352-2026
provision read as under:
"64. Disputes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, [any dispute
touching the constitution, management or business,
terms and conditions of employment of a society or the
liquidation of a society shall be referred to the
Registrar] by any of the parties to the dispute if the
parties thereto are among the following:- ...."
9. Section 64 of the Act of 1960 was thereafter again amended in the
year 2005 vide notification dated 13.06.2005, and the Section 64(1) of the
Act as amended with effect from 13.06.2005 reads as under:
"64. Disputes. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, [any dispute
touching the constitution, management or business,
[xxx] or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to
the Registrar] by any of the parties to the dispute if the
parties thereto are among the following:-....."
10.It is thus abundantly clear that the following insertion made in
Section 64(1) of the Act of 1960 on 08.05.1994, "[any dispute touching the
terms and conditions of employment of a society shall be referred to the
Registrar]" stood deleted on 13.06.2005, whereas the dispute under Section
64 of the Act of 1960 claiming compassionate appointment was filed by the
review petitioner before the Dy. Registrar on 11.09.2006 (Annexure-P/6),
i.e., much after the amendment dated 13.06.2005. On the said date, the
provision for filing of service dispute before the Dy. Registrar under Section
64(1) of the Act of 1960 was not there, and the provision as it stood prior to
08.05.1994 remained in force, which stands covered by the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Sahakari Vipran (Marketing) Sanstha
Maryadit (supra), relied upon by this Court while passing the order dated
23.01.2026 and therefore, there appears to be no error apparent on record so
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
7 RP-352-2026
as to exercise review of the reasoning assigned by this Court in the order
dated 23.01.2026 passed in W.P. No.19285/2022.
11.Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals
with the scope of review and states as follows:-
"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. ........"
12.The grounds available for filing a review application against a
judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following
words:
"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 are view 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.
1[Explanation - The fact that the decision on a question of law on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
8 RP-352-2026
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.]"
13.A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review
application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important
matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within
the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient
reason.
14.In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported
in 1980 Supp SCC 562, the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier
order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error
which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of
justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:
"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here were solved to hear
Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt
without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless
satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow
Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC
674, this Court observed:
'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin
ground but review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality. .....'
(emphasis added)
15.When the submissions advanced by counsel appearing for the
review petitioner and the grounds raised in the instant review petition are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11862
9 RP-352-2026
tested on the anvil of the settled propositions of law, as discussed
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that a period of nearly
25-26 years has already elapsed since the date of death of the father of the
review petitioner. The order dated 23.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.19285/2022 does not suffer from any perversity or illegality apparent on
the face of record so as to warrant interference in review.
16.Accordingly, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
17.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
