Orissa High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Nepal Harijan .... Opp. Party on 8 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.201 of 2025
Union of India & others ... Petitioners
Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra,
Sr. Panel Counsel
-versus-
Nepal Harijan .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.09.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
The petitioners, who were the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4
in the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 15344 of 2025 filed by the
opposite party Nepal Harijan, have sought for review of the
order dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Bench while disposing of
the writ petition.
The operative portion of the order dated 18.07.2025 is
extracted herein below for ready reference:-
"After going through the impugned order and hearing
the learned counsel for both the parties, we find that
the learned Tribunal is quite justified in applying the
said provision and allowing the prayer of the opp.
party. Moreover, the opp. party is now aged about
seventy three years and the appointment letter was
issued in his favour on 03.06.1980 and he submitted
the joining report on 13.06.1980. He got temporary
status on 01.06.1997 and his service was regularized
on 01.06.2007 and he retired from service on
31.03.2012. Accordingly, we find that there is no
perversity or Illegality of the impugned order and
therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed."
The factual matrix in the case at hand, is that the Union
of India and others, as the writ petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.
15344 of 2025 seeking to quash the order dated 02.01.2025
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack (in short, "the Tribunal") in O.A. no.260/00465
of 2025, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed the following
order:
"6. As per sub rule 3 of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 "In calculating the length of qualifying
service, fraction of a year equal to 3 (three months)
and above shall be treated as a completed one half-
year and reckoned as qualifying service." In the
instant case the applicant had completed 9 years and
10 months. Therefore applying the rule, since the
applicant had completed 10 months i.e. 6 + 4
months, the four months should be treated as
completed one half year, thus 6 months + 6 months
is to be treated as one full year. Thereby the
applicant qualifying service has to be reckoned as 10
years, which makes him eligible to get pension and
pensionary benefits.
7. It is settled law that pension is not a bounty rather
the same is granted for leading a peaceful retirement
life for the service rendered to the nation during
youth. Thus the respondent department ought to
have been careful when one is deprived of the
pension having nexus with right to life enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, in view of the position of rule, the action
of the department in not granting pension and
pensionary benefits to the applicant is illegal and is
violative of Constitution of India. Accordingly the
observation in impugned order dated 31.05.2023 is
quashed.
8. The respondents are directed to sanction and
disburse pension/arrears of pension and pensionary
benefits to the applicant. Since the applicant is a
senior citizen aged above 70 years and has been
deprived of his legitimate claim for more than a
decade, it is expected from the respondent
department that all the pensionary dues of the
applicant will be released to him as expeditiously as
possible but not later than 45 days from date of
receipt of copy of this order."
This Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated
18.07.2025 with the following observation:
"After going through the impugned order and hearing
the learned counsel for both the parties, we find that
the learned Tribunal is quite justified in applying the
said provision and allowing the prayer of the opp.
party. Moreover, the opp. party is now aged about
seventy three years and the appointment letter was
issued in his favour on 03.06.1980 and he submitted
the joining report on 13.06.1980. He got temporary
status on 01.06.1997 and his service was regularized
on 01.06.2007 and he retired from service on
31.03.2012. Accordingly, we find that there is no
perversity or illegality of the impugned order and
therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed."
Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, learned Senior Panel Counsel
for the Union of India vehemently argued that the learned
Tribunal has misconstrued itself in directing the petitioner to give
him regular pension when the opposite party had only six years
four months and seventeen days of service, which was less than
ten years and thus, he is not entitled to get pension. He further
argued that misinterpreting the fact that the opposite party was
granted temporary status on 01.06.1997 and was regularized on
01.06.2007 and thus, the total period of service under temporary
status comes to ten years, the Original Application was allowed.
He further submitted that the opp. party was a seasonal khalasi
and for the seasonal khalasi there was a provision to engage only
for the monsoon period which was normally 04 months in a year.
The seasonal khalasis were not engaged throughout the year.
Similarly, the opp. party was granted temporary status on
01.06.1997 and engaged for the declared monsoon period of 04
months every year. Thus, the opp. party has rendered only 1123
days of service under temporary status till his regularization on
01.06.2007. He further submitted that as per the "Scheme for
grant of temporary status and regularization of seasonal khalasi
in the work-charged establishment of Central Water Commission"
formulated by the Ministry of Water resources, New Delhi on
20.06.1997, 50% of the temporary service rendered by the opp.
party was calculated as 562 days (01 year 06 months 17 days)
and was taken into consideration for pension and pensionary
benefits and further, after adding the regular period of service
w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2012 i.e. 04 years 10 months, his
qualifying service for pension comes to only 06 years 04 months
and 17 days which is quite less than 10 years and hence, the
pension and pensionary benefits was not granted to the Opp.
party. He further submitted that the service rendered as
casual/contractual basis cannot be said to be officiating or
temporary service and even the services rendered as temporary
service can be considered as qualifying service provided that the
officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption
by substantive appointment in the same or another service or
post. He further submitted that the service rendered as
causal/contractual basis cannot be said to be service rendered on
a substantive appointment. Thus, learned counsel submitted that
the impugned judgment passed by this Court is required to be
reviewed or modified.
Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter
'CPC') deals with review of judgment. An order can be reviewed
by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC. The review proceedings are not by way of an
appeal nor can an appellate power be exercised in the guise of
power of review. Review is not re-hearing of an original matter.
The power of review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an
inherent power and can be exercised for the correction of a
mistake and not to substitute a view. Every error whether factual
or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC though it can be made subject matter of appeal
arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the
provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the error/mistake must be
apparent on the face of the record of the case.
In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.- Sumitri
Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases
715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 Code of Civil Procedure. In
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
Code of Civil Procedure, 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."
In Haridas Das -Vrs.- Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and
Ors. reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"13....The parameters are prescribed in Order 47
Code of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of this
lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the records or for any other sufficient
reason". The former part of the Rule deals with a
situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter
to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on
which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of
them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a
party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case
or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully
and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and
thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply
evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47
which states that 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 other
case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment. Where the order in question is appealable,
the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious
remedy and the Court should exercise the power to
review its order with the greatest circumspection...."
In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. -Vrs.-
Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"21. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that
where a review is sought on the ground of discovery
of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence
must be relevant and must be of such a character
that if the same had been produced, it might have
altered the judgment. In other words, mere
discovery of new or important matter or evidence is
not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae.
Not only this, the party seeking review has also to
show that such additional matter or evidence was not
within its knowledge and even after the exercise of
due diligence, the same could not be produced before
the Court earlier."
In the case of Kamlesh Verma -Vrs.- Mayawati and
Ors. reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 320, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court after analysing number of decisions on
scope of review, laid down its conclusions, which read as
follows:-
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki : AIR 1922 PC
112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius : AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule". The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese &
Iron Ores Ltd. : (2013) 8 SCC 337.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected
but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived."
In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -Vrs.- State
Tax Officer (1) and another reported in (2024) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 362 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows :
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:
16.1 A judgment is open to review inter alia if there
is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record.
16.2 A judgment pronounced by the Court is final,
and departure from that principle is justified only
when circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character make it necessary to do so.
xx xx xx xx
16.7 An error on the face of record must be such an
error which, mere looking at the record should
strike and it should not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions."
In view of the ratio as discussed above and on hearing
the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any error
apparent on the face of record warranting review of our order as
aforesaid.
In the result, the RVWPET fails and the same stands
dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Digitally Signed Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
PKSahoo
Date: 09-Sep-2025 14:28:22
