Back
M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Ratan Lal Patel – Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Review Petition/Application No. 1189/2020, by which the High Court has allowed the said review petition/application and has recalled order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 and has restored the said writ appeal to its file, the original writ petitioner – respondent in the writ appeal before the Division Bench has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 17517/2014 before the High Court challenging the order of superannuation and seeking directions to continue him in service till completion of age of 62 years. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge along with other writ petitions and they were granted the extended age of retirement, i.e. up to 62 years.
2.1 The University filed Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 before the Division Bench of the High Court, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 17517/2014. By a detailed judgment and order dated 10.11.2020, the Division B
Review Petition – While exercising review jurisdiction, Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on face of record which calls for exercise of review jurisdiction – Review jurisdiction....
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues.
Review jurisdiction is not a re-hearing of matters but corrects errors apparent on the record; thus, decisions on pension computation are binding.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of addressing jurisdictional issues and considering review petitions in administrative law matters.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984) applies only to specific categories of government ....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
Continuous pursuit of rights and entitlement to regularization notionally with all service and financial benefits.
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
