Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1019 (AP)

A. Seshadri Naidu v. A. Seshadri Naidu

2023-07-07

V.SUJATHA

body2023
ORDER : 1. This review petition is filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code by the respondents in writ petition No.6045 of 2013 to review the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.6045 of 2013, which was decided along with other W.P.Nos.8315, 8534, 8538 and 39284 of 2014 and 4561 of 2015 by a common order. Against the common order passed in W.P.No.6045 of 2013 and batch, respondents therein preferred W.A.No.1144 of 2017 and batch, which were closed granting liberty to the respondents to file review applications before the learned single Judge. 2. The petitioner was formerly employed as Store Keeper in the Transport Wing of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short "TTD"). This Transport Wing of the TTD was taken over by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "APSRTC") with effect from 10.08.1975 and the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of APSRTC. At that time, there was an agreement dated 08.08.1975 between the APSRTC and the TTD with regard to transfer of the TTD Transport Department to the APSRTC. Clause 14 of the said agreement is relevant and the same is referred to as under : 14. In respect of the retirement benefits of the employees of the Devasthanam absorbed by the RTC the following arrangement is agreed to:- (a) In case of Provident Fund, the amount outstanding to the credit of the transferred employees will be made over to the APSRTC by the Devasthanam. (b) The liability on account of Gratuity payable to the retiring employee will be proportionately born by the Devasthanam for the period of service rendered to them.” 3. Thereafter, there were discussions held by the Director of Personnel of the APSRTC and the representative of the TTD Transport Workers' Union, of which petitioners were members, regarding the service conditions of persons like the petitioner whose services were transferred from the Transport Wing of the TTD to the APSRTC. Clause 14 of the record of discussions dated 24/25.5.1977 between the parties, which is relevant is extracted hereunder : “14. Promotions to the transferred employees:- The issue has been covered under minute No.6. The same conditions shall apply to those who were given promotions in TT Units. Clause 14 of the record of discussions dated 24/25.5.1977 between the parties, which is relevant is extracted hereunder : “14. Promotions to the transferred employees:- The issue has been covered under minute No.6. The same conditions shall apply to those who were given promotions in TT Units. The DOP informed that there is no bar for any of the transferred employees to aspire for promotion if they accept to come under APSRTC Regulations. Such promotions will be given subject to the vacancies existed on the date of exercising option. The DOP further informed that the Corporation will guarantee retirement benefits admissible under TTD Service Rules to such of the employees who opt to the governed by the APSRTC Regulations and such employees will not be deprived of the retirement benefits of pension.” 4. The employees of the TTD were getting the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh Liberalized Pension Rules, 1961 (for short "the 1961 Rules"). But Transport and Canteen workers, who were originally employed in TTD and whose services were transferred to the APSRTC were not having any pension rules as such they raised a question about their entitlement to pension under the 1961 Rules. 5. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1037 Revenue- Endowments-III Department dated 13.08.1979 stating that as per the agreement dated 08.08.1975 between the TTD and the APSRTC at the time of handing over the Transport Wing of the TTD to the APSRTC, all benefits to which the TTD staff were entitled to prior to transfer of this Wing to the APSRTC will have to be continued by the APSRTC. Government stated that the benefits under the Liberalized Pension Scheme will have to be extended to this category also along with residuary employees of the Transport Wing with TTD and consequently the TTD would have to make proportionate pensionary contribution to the APSRTC in respect of those employees transferred to it. It further stated that all TTD Transport Workers would be extended the pensionary benefits under the 1961 Rules and the AP Government Servants Family Pension Rules, 1961 subject to condition that they give an undertaking that they will not claim bonus and subject to obtaining exemption under Section 27 of the General Provident Fund Act, 1925 from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. This Government Order was issued taking note of the correspondence between the Commissioner of Endowments Department and the General Manager of APSRTC. 6. This Government Order was issued taking note of the correspondence between the Commissioner of Endowments Department and the General Manager of APSRTC. 6. Claiming benefit of the pension admissible to TTD employees all the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6045 of 2013, W.P.8315 of 2014, W.P.No.8538 of 2014 and W.P.No.4561 of 2015, who were retired from service of the APSRTC, the spouse of an employee by name R.K. Janardhan Varma (who filed W.P.No.39284 of 2014 seeking family pension) and spouse of another employee by name Kora Subba rao (who filed W.P.8534 of 2014), have approached this Court. 7. Petitioners in the said writ petitions contended before the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad that by virtue of the understanding entered into on 24.05.1977, the APSRTC had guaranteed retirement benefits admissible under TTD Service Rules to such employees who opt to be governed by the APSRTC Regulations like the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6045 of 2013, W.P.8315 of 2014, W.P.No.8538 of 2014 and W.P.No.4561 of 2015 and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of pension admissible to TTD employees and that family pension is admissible to the widows of R.K. Janardhan Varma and Kora Subba Rao, who are petitioners in W.P.No.39284 of 2014 and W.P.No.8534 of 2014 as per the TTD Service Rules. 8. Petitioners contended that the Executive Officer of the TTD also addressed a letter to the APSRTC on 12.01.1988 stating that the petitioners in the above writ petitions, who are store keepers and whose services were handed over to the APSRTC by the TTD under the agreement dated 08.08.1975, would be covered by pensionary benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.1037 dated 13.08.1979. They contended that the petitioners had not been covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "EPF Act, 1952") when they were employed in the TTD and only in respect of employees, who had coverage under the said Act at the time of their transfer to APSRTC, requirement of obtaining exemption under Section 27 of the Act, 1952 would be attracted and not otherwise. They made representations on various dates in the year 2011 seeking pensionary benefits on par with TTD employees even though they had exercised option to be governed by the APSRTC Service Regulations, that the petitioners under took to pay back the provident fund and other benefits availed by them under APSRTC Service Regulations on their retirement and the action of the respondents in denying to them payment of pension/family pension on par with employees who had opted to be governed by the TTD Service Conditions as arbitrary and illegal. 9. The respondents filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioners in the W.P.Nos.6045 of 2013, W.P.8315 of 2014, W.P.No.8538 of 2014 and W.P.No.4561 of 2015 and the spouses of the petitioners in W.P.No.39284 of 2014 and W.P.No.8534 of 2014, after they were transferred to the APSRTC, had the benefit of promotions which they would not have got, had they continued in TTD, that they had also got higher pay scales and had received settlement amounts as per service conditions applicable to employees of APSRTC apart from Employers contribution towards provident fund from the dates of their retirement and after lapse of 36 years from the date of exercising option and after accepting service conditions of APSRTC and after their respective dates of retirement, they cannot be allowed to now seek the benefit of pension which the employees of TTD would be entitled to. 10. Respondents contended that Ex.TTD employees who had not opted for APSRTC service conditions were being paid liberalized pension and the petitioners cannot be now allowed to revoke their options and seek to be governed by the TTD Service Conditions. It is also stated that the petitioners were being paid pension under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and they cannot be allowed to enjoy pension under the scheme as well as the pension payable to TTD employees. 11. It is stated that the petitioners never made any representations while in service seeking pension as per the pension rules applicable to TTD, that they never revoked their option to be governed by the APSRTC Regulations and sought to be governed by service conditions and the pay scales applicable to the TTD Employees and they are estopped from now agitating this issue. 12. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC placed reliance on record of discussion between the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the APSRTC and the Ex.TTD Transport Workers Union on 03.08.1987 to the following effect : “17. It was represented that those who have opted to APSRTC pay scales and regulations were put to financial loss. It was also mentioned that they have worked out comparative pay and benefits with APSRTC vis-à-vis the Ex-TTD and found that the employees who opted to APSRTC were put to financial loss. It was agreed to consider individual requests of employees if the options worked out to their disadvantage. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director has clarified that if at a later day, when the RTC scales worked out to be beneficial, they shall not be given opportunity to re-opt to APSRTC once again.” 13. He contended therefore that after this discussion held on 03.08.1987, Ex.TTD employees whose services were transferred to APSRTC were given option to revert back to be governed by the TTD Service Rules if they had suffered any financial loss by earlier opting for APSRTC Regulations, but the petitioners did not exercise that option and having failed to do so, they cannot now reopen the issue after enjoying benefits such as promotions, higher pay scales and pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.No.6045 of 2013 has been retired as Controller of Stores from the APSRTC on 31.10.2004 and long after his retirement, he has made representations from 2011 seeking payment of pensionary benefits applicable to TTD former employees. 15. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.No.6045 of 2013 has been retired as Controller of Stores from the APSRTC on 31.10.2004 and long after his retirement, he has made representations from 2011 seeking payment of pensionary benefits applicable to TTD former employees. 15. W.P.No.6045 of 2013, in which the present review application was filed, has been decided by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad along with other writ petitions Nos.8315, 8534, 8538 and 39284 of 2014 and 4561 of 2015 by common order dated 24.11.2016, wherein learned single Judge after considering clause 14 of the record of discussions, held that as per the clause 14, a specific assurance was given by the respondents to the transferred employees such as the petitioners in batch of writ petitions that even if they opt for accepting the APSRTC regulations, they will be guaranteed retirement benefits admissible under TTD Service Rules and they would not be deprived of the retirement benefit of pension admissible under the TTD Service Rules, and that G.O.Ms.No.1037 Revenue-Endowments–III Department dated 13.08.1979 came to be issued by the State Government accepting the proposals of the TTD to extend the pensionary benefits from time to time in respect of the Transport TTD workers subject to the condition that they give undertaking that they will not claim bonus and also subject to obtaining exemption under Section 27 of the EPF Act, 1952 from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Therefore, at this stage, the question of petitioners getting exemption from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner does not arise. 16. Learned single Judge further held that there is no mention in clause 17 of the Record of Discussions dated 08.08.1987 about the pensionary benefits or that exercise of such option is necessary to opt for pensionary benefits admissible to TTD employees. There is also no reference to the agreement dated 24.05.1977 referred to above wherein, APSRTC had guaranteed retirement benefits admissible under TTD Service Rules including retirement benefits of pension to employees such as the petitioners who had been transferred from the TTD to the APSRTC and who opted to be governed by the APSRTC Regulations, therefore, exercise of option by the petitioners pursuant to clause-17 of the Record of Discussions dated 03.08.1987 in order to get the pensionary benefits under the TTD Service Rules was not necessary. 17. 17. As the petitioners in W.P.No.6045 of 2013 and batch received Contributory Provident Fund on the respective dates of retirement apart from pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 of the APSRTC from the date of their retirement, the learned single Judge passed the following order. (a) The petitioners in W.P.Nos.6045 of 2013, 8315 of 2014, 8538 of 2014 and 4561 of 2015 shall be entitled to pension on par with Ex.TTD employees from the date of submission of their respective applications seeking such benefit. (b) The petitioners in W.P.Nos.39284 of 2014 and 8534 of 2014 will be entitled to family pension on par with Ex.TTD Employees from the date of death of their respective spouses. (c) As a precondition for release of these benefits by the respective respondents, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6045 of 2013, 8315 of 2014, 8538 of 2014 and 4561 of 2015 shall refund the employer's share Contributory Provident Fund which they had received with interest at 9% per annum from the date of its receipt by them within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the APSRTC; and also refund the pension which they had received from the APSRTC from the respective dates of their applications seeking benefit of pension payable to Ex.TTD employees till date with interest at 9% per annum till date within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (d) Within four weeks of receipt of the above amounts from the petitioners, the APSRTC shall release pensionary benefits as admissible to Ex.TTD employees to petitioners in W.P.Nos.6045 of 2013, W.P.8315 of 2014, W.P.No.8538 of 2014 and W.P.No.4561 of 2015 and family pension as admissible to Ex.TTD employees to the petitioners in W.P.No.39284 of 2014 and W.P.8534 of 2014 from their respective dates of applications for the said benefit. No costs. 18. Aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned single Judge, respondents preferred W.A.No.1144 of 2017 and batch. 19. No costs. 18. Aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned single Judge, respondents preferred W.A.No.1144 of 2017 and batch. 19. During hearing of the said W.A.No.1144 of 2017 and batch, learned Advocate General contended that one significant aspect which has bearing on the entitlement of the respondents therein (writ petitioners in writ petitions) to seek pension on par with TTD employees was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge and that upon a reference made under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad took up I.D.No.43 of 1986, wherein "the Workmen, represented by Tirupati Transport Workers" Union, Tirupati' figured as the claimant while the respondents therein were "The Managing Director, APSRTC" and "the TTD, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati". The industrial dispute referred for resolution in the said I.D. was : “Whether the former T.T.D. Transport Workers (presently the A.P.S.R.T.C. Workers) are entitled to the benefits accrued to the present T.T.D. Workers after 8.8.1975 in terms of the agreement dated 8.8.1975? If so, to what extent?” 20. Learned Advocate General further contended that the Industrial Tribunal held that the former TTD Transport workers (presently, APSRTC workers) were entitled to only four benefits. Significantly, entitlement to pension on par with TTD employees did not figure amongst these four benefits. Learned Advocate General would assert that this aspect was also specifically raised before the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, denial of this relief would have some impact on the present lis. 21. In view of the said submission made by the learned Advocate General, learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, without entering into the merits of the matter, closed the writ appeals vide order dated 23.10.2018 granting liberty to the APSRTC to file review applications before the learned single Judge. 22. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, the present review has been filed. 23. 22. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, the present review has been filed. 23. Though various grounds have been raised in the review petition, learned counsel for the review petitioner – APSRTC has mainly contended that at the time of merger of the TTD Transport wing into APSRTC, there was no pension scheme either to the TTD employees or to the APSRTC employees, but subsequently the TTD Transport wing employees were brought under the purview of A.P. Liberalized pension scheme by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1037 dated 13.08.1979. At the time of merger, the TTD transport wing employees were not eligible for pension as the same was cancelled from 1967 itself. This implies that all the TTD Transport wing employees who were transferred to APSRTC on 10.08.1975 were aware of the fact that there is no pension both in TTD and APSRTC. Once the Ex-TTD employee's exercised option, it has become final and cannot be revoked. The option once exercised is final and there is no chance or scope to switch over between the service conditions of two entities at different points of time at their free will and whims. If such free switching is allowed, the merger of TTD into APSRTC loses its meaning and the very purpose of options is defeated. The transferred employees from TTD to APSRTC are not the employees of two organizations simultaneously as the TTD transport wing lost its identity by merger into APSRTC. Subsequent to merger the respondent herein was appointed after undergoing direct recruitment selection process in the Corporation as per the APSRTC recruitment regulations, therefore, seeking retiral benefits as per the TTD service conditions is not permissible. He further contended that upon complaint made vide I.D.No.43 of 1986 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, made under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal held that the members of TTD union working in APSRTC on merger are not entitled to claim benefits, which were conferred by the TTD management on its employees subsequent to 10.08.1975 i.e. date of merger, but the said fact of passing of Award by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.43 of 1986 was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition No.6045 of 2013 and batch. Further, the respondent who has opted for APSRTC rules, was permitted to revoke his option vide letter dated 25.03.1988, but he has not exercised any option, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim benefits on par with TTD employees, and requested to allow the review petition. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent – writ petitioner has contended that if at all the employees of transport wing of TTD raised a complaint vide I.D.No.43 of 1986 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, which was disposed of 26.10.1988, the same should have been brought to the notice of this Court by the review petitioner – APSRTC during pendency of the writ petition as the writ petition No.6045 of 2013 and batch was decided on 24.11.2016, but for the first time, it was introduced at the time of hearing of the writ appeal in the year 2018, to deny the benefits to the respondent- writ petitioner. Moreover, learned Division Bench of this Court has directed the review petitioner – APSRTC to file review against the common order passed in W.P.No.6045 of 2013 and batch, but instead of doing so, they have preferred review against the respondent (writ petitioner in W.P.No.6045 of 2013) only. The letter dated 25.03.1988 addressed by the Regional Manager, Nellore does not come in the way of the respondent - writ petitioner as the same was not communicated to him. After considering the entire material available on record, the learned single Judge granted pension to the respondent – writ petitioner on par with Ex.TTD employees and that the said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court in the review petition and requested to dismiss the review petition. 25. After considering the entire material available on record, the learned single Judge granted pension to the respondent – writ petitioner on par with Ex.TTD employees and that the said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court in the review petition and requested to dismiss the review petition. 25. For better appreciation of the present Review Application, this Court feels it appropriate to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as follows : “Order XLVII Rule 1 – Application For Review of Judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 26. However, even as per the Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is a very limited scope for review. A review can be ordered only on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Even as per the judgment in the case of “Allahabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Guj. 157 ”, a mere erroneous decision per se does not permit the Court to undertake review. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajendra Kumar Vs. Even as per the judgment in the case of “Allahabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Guj. 157 ”, a mere erroneous decision per se does not permit the Court to undertake review. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095 ” held that the first and foremost requirement 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 to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (6) SC 224” observed and held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The Supreme Court also held in the case of “State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another reported in 2008 (8) SCC 612 ” which is as follows : “22. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” 29. In “State of Maharastra Vs. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” 29. In “State of Maharastra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463 ”, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows : “When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.” 30. In “Smt. Krishna Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari and Others reported in 2005 SCC Online ALL 1533” the Court has observed as follows : “41. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Even the judgment given subsequent to the decision in a case can be no ground for entertaining the review. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court. If a counsel has argued a case to his satisfaction and he had not raised the particular point for any reason whatsoever, it cannot be a ground of review for the reason that he was the master of his case and might not have considered it proper to press the same or could have thought that arguing that point would not serve any purpose. If a case has been decided after full consideration of arguments made by a counsel, he cannot be permitted, even under the garb of doing justice or substantial justice, to engage the court again to decide the controversy already decided. If a party is aggrieved of a judgment, it must approach the Higher Court but entertaining a review to reconsider the case would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction, conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. Justice, as explained above, connotes different meaning to different persons in different contexts, therefore, courts cannot be persuaded to entertain a review application to do justice unless it lies only on the grounds mentioned in the statutory provisions.” 31. In “Smt. Krishna Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari and Others reported in 2005 SCC Online ALL 1533”, the Court held that, under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. 32. Discovery of any new fact or evidence necessarily has to be an important or relevant factor to the extent that had it been brought on record at the time when the order was passed, it would have an impact and might have altered the decision. Moreover, absence of such important fact or evidence on record at the time of decision, must not be the result of negligent attitude of the concerned person and therefore such person applying for review is required by law to strictly prove that such fact or evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced, even after exercising due diligence and unless such proof is produced, review application shall not be entertained. 33. In the present case, the review petitioner seeking review of the order passed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.43 of 1986 was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition(s). 34. The Award in I.D.No.43 of 1986 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 26.10.1988, and the writ petition No.6045 of 2013 and batch was decided on 24.11.2016 i.e. after lapse of 28 years. 34. The Award in I.D.No.43 of 1986 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 26.10.1988, and the writ petition No.6045 of 2013 and batch was decided on 24.11.2016 i.e. after lapse of 28 years. The said factum of disposal of I.D.No.43 of 1986 was also not referred in the counter filed by the APSRTC. But for the first time, they brought it to the notice of Court at the time of hearing of writ appeal. Therefore, as the APSRTC was one of the respondents in I.D.No.43 of 1986, it cannot be said that such passing of Award by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.43 of 1986 is not within the knowledge of APSRTC or it could not be produced, even after exercise of due diligence. 35. Clause 14 of the Record of Discussions dated 24.05.1977 between the parties shows that the Director of Personnel of the APSRTC agreed that there was no bar for any of the transferred employees to aspire for promotion if they accept to come under APSRTC Regulations, that the APSRTC would guarantee payment of retirement benefits admissible under TTD Service Rules to such employees even if they opt to be governed by the APSRTC Regulations and such employees will not be deprived of the benefits of pension. 36. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the respondents have not disputed the record of discussions dated 24.05.1977 wherein the APSRTC had agreed to give retirement benefits admissible under TTD Service Rules to the employees who had been transferred from the TTD even if they had opted to be governed by APSRTC Regulations and had assured that such employees would get the retirement benefit of pension. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent – writ petitioner had opted to be governed by the APSRTC Regulations and benefited from such regulations by getting promotions and larger pay scales in APSRTC, they cannot be deprived of the retirement benefit of pension in view of the specific assurance given on 24-05-1977 by the APSRTC, even if they have not later opted to be governed by the TTD Service Rules. 37. Further, the letter dated 25.03.1988 addressed by the Regional Manager, Nellore, permitting the respondent – writ petitioner to revoke his option on or before 15.04.1988 for examination by Head Office, was not communicated to the respondent - writ petitioner. 37. Further, the letter dated 25.03.1988 addressed by the Regional Manager, Nellore, permitting the respondent – writ petitioner to revoke his option on or before 15.04.1988 for examination by Head Office, was not communicated to the respondent - writ petitioner. Moreover, the acknowledgment was signed by one L. Sree Ramulu, Stores Superintendent, Regional Stores, Vizianagaram, but not by the respondent – writ petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the said letter dated 25.03.1988 calling for option was not served on the respondent - writ petitioner. Hence, the question of submission of option by the respondent – writ petitioner in pursuance of the letter dated 25.03.1988 does not arise. Therefore, basing on the said letter dated 25.03.1988, the relief granted to the respondent – writ petitioner in W.P.No.6045 of 2013 and batch cannot be reviewed. 38. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 39. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.