Orissa High Court
Union Of India & Another vs Opp. Party on 29 October, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.187 of 2025
Union of India & another .... Petitioners
Mr. Biswajit Maharana, S.P.C.
-versus-
Opp. Party
Rudra Narayan Mishra ....
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 29.10.2025
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
The review petitioner has filed the present
review petition filed by the petitioner to review the
judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed in W.P.(C)
No.21713 of 2024.
In the impugned order, we have noted down the
factual aspect in paragraph-3 and the observation of
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in
paragraph-5.
After hearing the learned counsel for the
respective parties, we have held as follows:
"13.The petitioners-Union of India by way of the
present petition, are exploring the prayer in the
Writ Petition for the second time. In the earlier
Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No.21198 of 2014
filed by the opposite party, this Court has
unequivocally held that RBE No.132 of 2006 has
no retrospective application, however, on
procedural grounds remitted the matter back to
the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by a reasoned
order has again reiterated the same. Hence, the
prayer of the Union of India made in the present
Writ Petition has been judicially scrutinized by the
learned Tribunal twice and this Court once in the
earlier round.
14. The issue of applicability of RBE No.132 of
2006 retrospectively came in question before the
Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.33309 of 2011 in the case of Union of India
& Ors. -vrs.- Shubhasis Halder & Anr. The
Allahabad High Court in the concluding paragraph
has held as under:-
"In the present case as observed above, the
petitioner was appointed on 30.9.2000 and
his pay was fixed including running allowance
on 2.4.2002. The order for refixation of pay
after deducting running allowance was
passed on 26.2.2004. The Circular dated
15.9.2006 specifically provides that it will not
have retrospective effect. It could not be
pressed into service for deducting running
allowances as element of pay for fixing the
pay, and to direct recovery of the excess
payment."
15. The attempt of the Union of India to give
retrospective effect to RBE No.132 of 2006 has
been negated by the Allahabad High Court. The
same reasoning has been given by the learned
Tribunal while allowing the Original Application of
the opposite party which is impugned in the
present petition.
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax
-Vrs.-Vatika Township Private Limited
reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1,
it is held as follows:-
"28...... One established rule is that unless a
contrary intention appears, a legislation is
presumed not to be intended to have a
retrospective operation. The idea behind the
rule is that a current law should govern
current activities. Law passed today cannot
apply to the events of the past. If we do
something today, we do it keeping in view
the law of today and in force and not
tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our
belief in the nature of the law is founded on
the bed rock that every human being is
entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on
the existing law and should not find that his
plans have been retrospectively upset. This
principle of law is known as lex prospicit non
respicit law looks forward not backward. As
was observed in Phillips v. Eyre (1870) LR
6 QB 1, a retrospective legislation is
contrary to the general principle that
legislation by which the conduct of mankind
is to be regulated when introduced for the
first time to deal with future acts ought not
to change the character of past transactions
carried on upon the faith of the then existing
law.
29. The obvious basis of the principle against
retrospectivity is the principle of 'fairness',
which must be the basis of every legal rule
as was observed in the decision reported in
L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates -Vrs.-
Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co.
Ltd.: (1994) 1 AC 486. Thus, legislations
which modified accrued rights or which
impose obligations or impose new duties or
attach a new disability have to be treated as
prospective unless the legislative intent is
clearly to give the enactment a retrospective
effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of
supplying an obvious omission in a former
legislation or to explain a former
legislation....
30. We would also like to point out, for the
sake of completeness, that where a benefit is
conferred by a legislation, the rule against a
retrospective construction is different. If a
legislation confers a benefit on some persons
but without inflicting a corresponding
detriment on some other person or on the
public generally, and where to confer such
benefit appears to have been the legislators
object, then the presumption would be that
such a legislation, giving it a purposive
construction, would warrant it to be given a
retrospective effect. This exactly is the
justification to treat procedural provisions as
retrospective. In Government of India and
Ors. -Vrs. Indian Tobacco Association:
(2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness
was held to be relevant factor to construe a
statute conferring a benefit, in the context of
it to be given a retrospective operation. The
same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a
statute was retrospective in nature, was
applied in the case of Vijay -Vrs.- State of
Maharashtra and Ors : (2006) 6 SCC
289. It was held that where a law is enacted
for the benefit of community as a whole,
even in the absence of a provision the
statute may be held to be retrospective in
nature."
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to revisit
the settled issue and upset the impugned order
dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack
in O.A. No.230 of 2011."
The main contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that RBE No.132 of 2006
is merely a clarificatory instruction reaffirming the
above position and does not extend the applicability of
the 30% pay element to appointments through GDCE
and the case of the opposite party Rudra Narayan
Mishra does not fall under the scope of this benefit,
which was not appreciated by the learned Tribunal in
the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 and, therefore,
the review petition should be entertained and the
order dated 02.07.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.21713
of 2024 be reviewed or recalled.
The limited scope of review jurisdiction is well
settled. In the case of Registrar General of the
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and others
vs. Malaya Ranjan Dash and another passed this
court in RVWPET No.160 of 2025, we have
observed as under:
18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to examine the
contours of review jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in its recent pronouncement in Malleeswari -
Vrs.- K. Suguna and Another1, after drawing
guidance from earlier decisions in Parsion Devi -
Vrs.- Sumitri Devi2, Lily Thomas -Vrs.-Union of
India3, Inderchand Jain -Vrs.- Motilal4, Shivdev
Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab (supra), Hari
Vishnu Kamath -Vrs.- Syed Ahmad Ishaque5,
T.C. Basappa -Vrs.- T. Nagappa6, Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde -Vrs.- Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale7 and Chhajju Ram -Vrs.-
Neki8, has restated the scope and ambit of review
under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court crystallized
the principles as follows:
"17. Having noticed the distinction between
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927
(1997) 8 SCC 715
(2000) 6 SCC 224
(2009) 14 SCC 663
(1954) 2 SCC 881
(1954) 1 SCC 905
AIR 1960 SC 137
1922 SCC OnLine PC 11
the power of review and appellate power, we
restate the power and scope of review
jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up
as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and
important matter or evidence is a ground
available if it is demonstrated that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, this evidence was
not within their knowledge or could not be
produced by the party at the time, the original
decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record may be invoked if there is
something more than a mere error, and it
must be the one which is manifest on the face
of the record. Such an error is a patent error
and not a mere wrong decision. An error which
has to be established by a long-drawn process
of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said
to be an error apparent on the face of the
record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient
reason' means a reason that is sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified
in the other two categories."
The principles culled out in Malleeswari
(supra), read in conjunction with the earlier
precedents referred to therein, make it abundantly
clear that the jurisdiction of review is of a very
limited nature. It is intended only to correct a
manifest error or to consider material which could
not be produced earlier despite due diligence. An
error apparent on the face of the record that is, a
patent and self-evident mistake which does not
require elaborate reasoning, possibility as well may
also furnish a ground for review. Likewise, the phrase
"any other sufficient reason" has been judicially
construed to mean reasons analogous to the
discovery of new evidence or error apparent, and
cannot be invoked to re-agitate settled issues. Thus,
the scope of review is restrictive and circumscribed,
standing in sharp contrast to the wider jurisdiction
exercised in appeal.
19. Having delineated the scope of review as settled
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it becomes necessary
to test the present plea against these parameters."
In view of the settled position of law, since we do
not find any error apparent on the face of record, we
are not inclined to entertain this review petition.
Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Subhasis
Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 29-Oct-2025 20:30:26
