Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Guglani And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 January, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -1-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101 (05 cases) RA-CW-339-2024 in CWP-2936-2017
Date of Decision :10.01.2025
O.P. Kathuria and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
RA-CW-464-2024 in CWP-19325-2015
S.K. Mathur and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
RA-CW-463-2024 in CWP-23591-2015
Rajan Guglani and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
RA-CW-427-2024 in CWP-10646-2023
K.L. Bhayana and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 03:03:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -2-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
RA-CW-431-2024 in CWP-5195-2016
S.C. Sikka and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the review-applicant(s)
in RA-CW-339-2014, RA-CW-464-2024, RA-CW-463-2024 &
RA-CW-427-2024.
Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Advocate for the review-applicant
in RA-CW-339-2024.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Haryana with
Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik Advocate,
Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate & Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocates
for the respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
1. Present review petitions have been filed for the review of the
judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Full Bench of this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that though,
he has no grievance with regard to the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by
the Full Bench of this Court, qua the setting aside Rule 8(3) of the Haryana
Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-II Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to
as Part-II Rules, 2009) however, the only difficulty found is that no
direction has been given to the respondents in the said judgment to consider
the claim of the petitioners for grant the same, who have now become
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -3-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
eligible for the grant of benefit after Rule 8(3) of the Haryana Civil Services
(Revised Pension) Part-II Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as Part-II
Rules, 2009) has been set aside so as to cover the petitioners therein under
Rule 8(1) of Part-II Rules, 2009 for the grant of the benefit through
application of judgment dated 19.07.2024.
3. It may be noticed that once, Rule 8(3) of Part-II Rules, 2009
has been set aside and Rule 8(1) of Part-II Rules, 2009 has been made
applicable even qua the employees, who retired between the period
01.01.2006 and 17.04.2009, it is incumbent upon the respondent-State to
grant the relief admissible to such employees, in case any claim is raised
before the State by filing appropriate representation by any such claimant
including the petitioners. Rather than raising a claim before the State so as
to be considered eligible to be granted the relief keeping in view the
judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Full Bench of this Court, the
petitioners have chosen to file present review petition. The grant of relief is
inherent keeping in view the fact that Rule 8(3) of Part-II Rules, 2009 has
been set aside. In case, any representation is filed by any employee, who
retired between 01.01.2006 to 17.04.2009 to claim relief under 2009 Rules,
the State is bound to consider the same in a time bound manner and pass
appropriate order within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of
any such representation qua the relief claimed along with consequential
benefits admissible.
4. Grievance raised by the applicants in the review petitions is
that the judgment dated 19.07.2024 which is sought to be reviewed is
incorrect and the view taken by the Full Bench cannot be sustained as the
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -4-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
same is contrary keeping in view the relief granted to various employees in
the said judgment. Further prayer is that certain other reliefs were also
sought by the petitioners, which never came to be decided by the Full Bench
of this Court.
5. Further argument raised on behalf of the review-applicants is
that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court qua issue No.1 by relying
upon judgment in R.K. Aggarwal and others vs, State of Haryana and
others, 2013 (4) SCT 286 is liable to be reviewed as the decision of this
Court is incorrect qua the decision that no adjudication is required to be
undertaken on the issue of cut off date keeping in view the judgment in
R.K. Aggarwal (supra).
6. The aforementioned arguments raised in the review petitions
need to be addressed within the ambit of the limited jurisdiction a Court can
exercise while considering the review petition.
7. On being asked to point out incorrect facts, which were relied
upon while recording the findings, learned counsel for the review-applicants
have not been able to bring any such fact to the notice of this Court.
8. Th review petitions have been filed contending that the
interpretation qua various judgments noticed in the judgment dated
19.07.2024 are incorrect as per the review-applicants. Under the garb of
review, the review-applicants intended to re-argue the issue so as to
convince this Court to take another view other than the one taken while
passing judgment dated 19.07.2024.
9. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review
petition, the review-applicants cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -5-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be
placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai
Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is as under:-
5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this
Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required
to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court
has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an
application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the
Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is
observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is
further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed
that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake
but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within
the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is
further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency
to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally
decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review
powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:"
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error
apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of
record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking
at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two
opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -6-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason
which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a
court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 has
been held that it is only on discovery of new and important matter which
after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when
order was made, the remedy of review may be exercised however, a review
petition cannot be filed on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits
as the same will be province of a Court of appeal. Relevant paragraph of the
judgment is as under:-
3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for
reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that
his predecessor had overlooked two important
documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the
respondents were in possession of the sites even in the
year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made
even by then. The second was that there was a patent
illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a
single writ petition, settlement made in favour of
different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the
reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial
Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is
true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -7-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High
Court from exercising the power of review which
inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits
to the exercise of the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be produced by
him at the time when the order was made; it may be
exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on
any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on
the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
That would be the province of a court of appeal. A
power of review is not to be confused with appellate
powers which may enable an appellate court to correct
all manner of errors committed by the subordinate
court."
11. While deciding the same issue of review, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 held
that 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 exercise of power of review. Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held that review petition cannot be filed for an erroneous decision
to be reheard and corrected and the said review petition cannot be an appeal
in disguise. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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 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
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -8-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
of review under O Order rder 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise
of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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"."
12. The said decision has already been followed by this Court in
Paramjit Singh through LRs vs. Gurdial Singh and others, 2022 SCC
Online P&H 1637. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
"The counsel has further in his arguments sought to raise the
points of self-contradictions self contradictions and self self-
defeating stands and which could not be taken into
consideration in a review application and and it is well
settled law as has sought to be relied upon by counsel for the
respondent who has cited the judgments titled as 'Sasi (D)
Through Lrs. v. Aravindakshan Nair' (2017) 2 RCR (Civil)
363 and 'Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi' (1997) 4 RCR (Civil)
458 458;; where the Apex Court has laid down that a review
cannot be allowed to be disguised as an appeal for getting an
erroneous decision reheard and corrected and has to be used
within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to rectify any error
patent on the records instead of assailing the orders on the
appeals by this Court before the next Court the instant review
has come about for a motivated cause. Since, this Court
cannot come across any mistake or an error apparent on the
records which could be self evident and any such
interpretation that is sought to be put forth by the counsel for
the applicant by process of reasoning cannot be considered at
this juncture."
13. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Ram Sahu
(Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Vinod Kumar
Rawat and others (2021) 13 SCC 1, held as under:-
"6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well
settled. The first and foremost require requirement ment of
entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which
is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order
and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In
the absence of any such error, finality attached attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed.'
9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the
event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes
place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of th the e applicant or could not be produced by him
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -9-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
at the time when the order was made. An application for review
would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some
mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for
any other sufficient sufficient reason.
10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does
not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general
rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not
be altered. It is also trite that pronounced, exercise of inherent
jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of
India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 :2000
SCC (Cri) 1056] this Court held : (SCC p. 251, para 56) '56. It
follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers
can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with
tthehe exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an
appeal in disguise.' "
8. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of
looking, offer something again with a view to correction
or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is i the
creation of a statute. In v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,
(1971) 3 SCC 844] , this Court has held that the power of review
is not an inherent power. It must be conferre conferredd by law
either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is
also not an appeal in disguise.Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi
9. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court
in v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440] . It is held that such an
error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong
decisiT.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappaon. In Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 110 11044 : AIR 1955 SC
233] , it is observed as under : (SCC p. 244, para 23)."
14. Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed
hereinbefore, the review petitions which have been filed by the applicants
are only to re-argue the case so as to contend that the findings recorded by
the Court are not correct, hence the review petitions are not maintainable
and are liable to be rejected.
15. Learned counsel for the review-applicants submits that certain
arguments raised in the writ petitions, have not been dealt with and there
were other prayers as well in the writ petitions, which require adjudication.
16. It may be noticed that the question of law requires
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -10-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
adjudication by the Full Bench were noticed by the Division Bench vide
reference order dated 08.03.2017, which have been dealt in the judgment
dated 19.07.2024.
17. Further, on being asked as to whether any other prayer was
pressed during the hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the review-
applicants very fairly submits that no such prayer was pressed qua any
other relief by the petitioners while arguing before the Full Bench of this
Court.
18. That being so, once, no issue other than those already dealt in
the judgment dated 19.07.2024 were argued before the Full Bench of this
Court, the grievance qua any other issue is taken to have been waived by
the petitioners and the review petition cannot be filed qua the said issues.
19. Further, on one hand some of the petitioners have filed present
review petitions, whereas, even special leave petitions have been filed
against the said judgment being SLP Nos.27623-27628 of 2024 and LPA
Nos.26086-26088-2024 wherein, notice has already been issued. Once, the
judgment is in appeal on the same ground, seeking review of the said
judgment on the same ground is even otherwise not permissible hence, the
petitioners are availing two different remedies qua the same grievance
especially, when only one remedy of appeal could have been availed which
has already been availed by a particular set of petitioners hence, no ground
is made out for the review of the judgment sought in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
20. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed
hereinbefore, coupled with the settled principle of law as noticed
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004646
RA-CW-339-2024 in -11-
CWP-2936-2017 & connected review petitions
hereinabove, the present review petitions are dismissed.
21. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
petitions.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
January 10, 2025
aarti
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
11 of 11
