Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Sallauddin on 15 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.38 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23778 of 2019
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, District- Vaishali, Bihar.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai.
3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai.
4. The Senior Divisonal Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai.
5. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sallauddin Son of Late Ali Hussain, Ex-travelling Ticket Inspector, East
Central Railway Gaya, Resident of Old Karamganj Road No. 2, near
Madarsa, Shamsul Ollon, District - Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Din Bandhu Singh, Advocate Sr. Panel Counsel
Mr. R.K. Sharma, CGC
Mr. Sushant Praveen, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 15-01-2024
The present Civil Review petition is filed for recalling
the order dated 02.12.2019 passed in CWJC No. 23778 of 2019.
2. Grievance of the respondent-Sallauddin is that he has
been denied monetary benefits with reference to his promotion to
Patna High Court C. REV. No.38 of 2021 dt.15-01-2024
the post of CIT w.e.f. 27.12.2012, the date on which Sri N.K.
Singh who was junior in the cadre was promoted as CIT.
Respondent-Sallauddin was extended the monetary benefit of
promotion w.e.f. 01.11.2013, however, arrears of salary (difference
of salary) has been denied during the intervening period from
27.12.2012 to 01.11.2013 only on the score that he was promoted
on par with Sri N.K. Singh on a different date. Such denial of
promotion is on account of certain clerical errors committed by
official review-petitioners. In other words, there was no default on
the part of respondent-Sallauddin insofar as denial of promotion
with reference to his immediate junior Sri N.K. Singh was
promoted to the post of CIT w.e.f. 27.12.2012. In other words,
there was a fault on the part of the review petitioners-railway
department in not promoting respondent-Sallauddin on par with
Sri N.K. Singh and he was promoted on 01.11.2013. However,
difference of salary against the promotional post of CIT has been
denied during the period from 27.12.2012 to 01.11.2013. The
petitioners are taking shelter of Para 228 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual (IREM). The same has been taken note of
by the Co-ordinate Bench while deciding CWJC No. 23778 of
2019 decided on 02.12.2019.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.38 of 2021 dt.15-01-2024
3. Reading of the aforementioned Rule or Para, 228, it is
not attracted in the present case, for the reasons that there is no
erroneous promotion given either to Sri N.K. Singh or to the
respondent-Sallauddin. On the other hand, the situation is totally
different only to the extent that respondent-Sallauddin has been
overlooked due to clerical mistake stated to have been committed
by the petitioners and it is not disputed by them.
4. Scope of review is limited in the light of Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Murali
Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 185 elaborately considered under what circumstances
courts can review its own order. Recently in yet another decision
in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1)
& Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 Supreme Court
lays down eight principles in Para 16 which reads as under:-
"16. The gist of the afore-
stated decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake
or an error apparent on the face of the
record.
(ii) 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.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.38 of 2021 dt.15-01-2024
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to
exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the
jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed
to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of
review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions which have already been
addressed and decided.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Even the change in law
or subsequent decision/judgment of a
co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for
review."
6. In the light of principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision the petitioners have not
made out a case so as to recall the order or review the order
Patna High Court C. REV. No.38 of 2021 dt.15-01-2024
dated dated 02.12.2019 passed in CWJC No. 23778 of 2019.
Hence, the civil review petition stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
