Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 345 (AP)

G Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-03-12

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. This application is filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 of 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to review the order dtd. 6/3/2023 passed in W.P.No.25862 of 2021. 2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of minimum time scale as extended in terms of Memo No.1056/SEC/V/2017, dtd. 26/12/2017 and Memo No.5630/Sec. V/ 2016, dtd. 7/9/2017 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forest, Science & Technology Department, and not following the judgments rendered in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . and State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 148 . and Ram Naresh Rawt vs. Aswini Ray and Others, 2017 (3) SCC 436 . as illegal and arbitrary. 3. This Court, by order dtd. 6/3/2023, negatived the petitioners' claim qua regularization of service and allowed the claim insofar as the prayer for extension of minimum time scale is concerned, and directed the petitioners/respondents to extend the benefit of minimum time scale attached to the posts of the respondents/petitioners i.e. Clerical Assistant (non-technical) and Jeep Driver (Technical), respectively. Aggrieved by the same present review petition is filed by the authorities. 4. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners/respondents and Sri K.P.S. Prakash Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. A.V.S. Laxmi, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the respondents/writ petitioners failed to demonstrate that they are rendering duties and responsibilities similar to those being discharged by regular employees holding the same or corresponding posts and hence, the order, dtd. 6/3/2023 needs to be reviewed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, per contra, would submit that other persons, who are discharging similar duties, were granted minimum time scale. He would further submit that the review petition was filed after filing of the contempt case. 7. The power of the court qua review jurisdiction is no longer resjudicata. 8. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372 . He would further submit that the review petition was filed after filing of the contempt case. 7. The power of the court qua review jurisdiction is no longer resjudicata. 8. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372 . the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error, apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error." 9. The above proposition of law was reiterated in Parsion Devi & Others v. Sumitri Devi & Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715 . 10. In Board of Control for Cricket in India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club & Others, (2005) 4 SCC 741 . 89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words "sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". 11. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 . the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect of review and observed at para Nos.19 and 20, which is extracted hereunder: 19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. 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 [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112 ] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [ AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 ] 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 and Iron Ores Ltd. [ (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. Mar Poulose Athanasius [ AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 ] 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 and Iron Ores Ltd. [ (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 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. 12. In, N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 534. the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "6. A careful look at the impugned order would show that the High Court had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in the suit filed by Respondent 1 and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dtd. 8/6/2011. The course followed by the High Court is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 8-6- 2011. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits." 13. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention of learned counsel for the review petitioners that respondents/writ petitioners failed to satisfy the Court that they are rendering similar duties and responsibilities being discharged by regular employees, falls to ground. In fact, sufficient material was placed before the court at the time of hearing the writ petition, whereby the authorities extended benefit to similarly situated persons. This Court considered the same and passed the order. There are no errors apparent on the fact of the record to review the order. There are no merits in the review petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.