[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Purswami vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23666
1 RP-564-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 564 of 2026
YOGESH PURSWAMI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Preeti Singh - Advocate for Union of India.
Shri Naveen Kumar Salunke - Advocate for the Caveator.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The present petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated
18.2.2026 passed in M.P.No.862/2026, whereby the Miscellaneous Petition
was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner filed a
Miscellaneous Petition seeking following reliefs:-
"7.1.Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the decision
dated 08/03/2019 taken by Respondent No. 2 in its 91st meeting
(Annexure-P/1), which erroneously rejected the Petitioner's
request to transition to the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972.
7.2.Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the executive
order dated 08/03/2019 (Annexure-P/1) and issue a Writ of
Certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated
28/10/2025(Annexure-P/2) and dated 11/12/2025(Annexure-P/3)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23666
2 RP-564-2026
passed in Review Application No. 67/2025 by the Hon'ble CAT,
Jabalpur Bench.
7.3 Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to treat
the Petitioner as a member of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,
with effect from his date of appointment ( 8/12/1993), in
accordance with the DoPT OM dated 01/05/1987 and Paragraph 7
of the Narmada Water Scheme.
7.4. Declare that the NCA Pension Scheme, 1995, and the
subsequent option form dated 17/01/1996 are ultra vires , void ab
initio, and legally inconsequential, having been rejected by the
Central Government in 2003.
7.5. Direct the Respondents to compute and release all pensionary
benefits, including monthly pension, arrears of pension with
interest, and commuted value of pension, while adjusting any CPF
amounts already drawn by the Petitioner.
7.6. Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice and equity."
3. We have heard the miscellaneous petition in detail and decided on
merits.
4. The scope of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is extremely limited. It is a well-established legal principle that the
power of review is extremely limited, unless there is an error apparent on the
face of the record. The provision of review cannot be invoked for the re-
hearing of the entire petition. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor can they
be used for re-hearing the matter or for applying subsequent developments in
law. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980)
2 SCC 167, it was held that a review is not permissible merely for rehearing
the case on merits or because another view is possible. Similarly, in Parsoni
Devi v. State of Bihar, (2004) 1 SCC 632, the Apex Court reiterated that
review is maintainable only in cases of an error apparent on the face of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23666
3 RP-564-2026
record, a patent mistake, or a manifest injustice, and not merely on account
of a subsequent change in law.
5. The submissions advanced in the present review petition are
substantially the same as those urged at the time of hearing of the writ
petition and have already been considered and rejected by this Court.
6. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, this
Court finds no ground to review the order dated 18.2.2026 passed in
M.P.No.862/2026 is made out.
7 . If the respondents claim any fees for appearing in the review
petition, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner.
8. So far the correction of dates are concerned, the application may be
filed in disposed of M.P.No.862/2026. That can be corrected under Chapter
IV, Rule 30 of 'The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008'.
9. With the aforesaid, review petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
nd
