Unknown vs Krishna Devi Uniyal And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1158 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Krishna Devi Uniyal And Another on 9 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                       2022:UHC:8609-DB



IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

                                AND

  THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

      MCC No. 15525 of 2024 (Review Application)
                                  in
              Special Appeal No. 1011 of 2017
                          09th June, 2025

 Director General CPWD and others                 ------- Appellants

                                 Versus

 Krishna Devi Uniyal and another                 ------Respondents
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Presence:-
 Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants.
 Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
 Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
 no.2.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 JUDGMENT:

(per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

As per the office report, there is delay of 533 days in filing the Review Application by the respondent no.1.

2. No objection on delay condonation application has been filed on behalf of the appellants.

3. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation application, the delay is condoned.

4. This Special Appeal was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2022, by which, the

2022:UHC:8609-DB judgement rendered by learned Single Judge was set aside and writ petition no. 1359 of 2016 filed by the respondent (review applicant) was dismissed.

5. It is not in dispute that husband of the respondent was employed as office Assistant in Central Public Works Department, who was discharged from service in 1965 due to reduction in strength. Respondent's husband was not given pension during his life time and he passed away in the year 1998. Thereafter, respondent staked claim for Family Pension by filing writ petition (SS) No. 97 of 2010, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 25.07.2013. The judgment rendered by learned Single Judge was affirmed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 322 of 2013. However, in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. (s) 6139 of 2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted respondent to submit representation to the competent authority. On the representation submitted by respondent, in terms of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the competent authority decided to grant Family Pension to the respondent, however, it was mentioned in the order of competent authority that as per rules, respondent is not entitled to get Family Pension, however, on humanitarian ground the Family Pension was sanctioned.

5. Respondent thereafter filed another writ petition claiming interest on delayed payment of Family Pension, which was allowed. The Judgement rendered by learned Single Judge was reversed by Coordinate Bench in a Appeal by holding that since Family Pension was released to respondent on sympathetic ground and she

2022:UHC:8609-DB had no legal entitlement for Family Pension, therefore, her claim for interest is without any basis.

6. Learned counsel for the review applicant relies on Regulation 426 of Civil Servant Regulation as was applicable in 1965, which is extracted below for ready reference:

"426. If an officer is selected for discharge owing to the abolition of a permanent post, he shall, unless he is appointed to another post the conditions of which are deemed by authority competent to discharge him to be at least equal to those of his own, have the option-

"(a) of taking any compensation pension or gratuity to which he may be entitled for the service he has already rendered, or

(b) of accepting another appointment or transfer to another establishment even on a lower pay, if offered, and continuing to count his previous service for pension."

7. The learned counsel for the review appellant submits that observations made by learned Coordinate Bench that the review applicant had no vested right to claim interest on the arrears of the family pension is erroneous.

8. The scope of review is very limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, reported in (2022) 17 Supreme Court Cases 255 in para 33 has held that a decision even through erroneous cannot be corrected in exercise of review jurisdiction. Para 33 of the judgment is extracted below:

"As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review

2022:UHC:8609-DB if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer: Chhajju Ram v. Neki and moranmarbashelios catholicos v. Marpoulose Athanasius)."

9. Law is well settled that review of a judgment can be done when there is an error apparent on the face of record. In the present case there is no such error apparent on the face of record which may warrant invocation of review jurisdiction. At the stage of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-argue the case on merits, and it can be done only before the Appellate forum.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Review Application is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Dated: 09.06.2025 Kaushal