Review applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. This is an application for review of a judgment and order dated October 13, 2023, passed by this Bench, whereby an appeal being MAT 890 of 2022 was disposed of.

2. The brief background of this case is that the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner was temporarily appointed in the post of Resident Medical Officer (in short ‘RMO’) in Dum Dum Municipality by letter dated June 6, 1998, on probation, for a period of 6 months. He was placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-. By a resolution dated December 29, 1998, the Municipality confirmed the writ petitioner’s service as RMO with effect from December 1, 1998, in the scale of pay which he was enjoying.

3. The writ petitioner retired from service upon superannuation on August 31, 2015. His claim for pensionary benefits was negated by the State Authorities on the ground that he was not appointed in a sanctioned post. Prior approval of the State Government had not been obtained for his appointment.

4. The writ petitioner approached a learned Single Judge of this Court by filing WPA 4259 of 2016. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge by a judgment and order Dated November 10, 2016. That order was carried in appeal by the State respondents by filing MAT 588 of 2017. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal by a judgment and order dated November 27, 2017, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanding the matter for fresh hearing by the learned Single Judge having determination in the matter, after exchange of affidavits.

5. Upon remand, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed “the respondent authorities to process the pension case of the petitioner and sanction his entire retiral dues which is admissible to him upon completing the necessary formalities and issue Pension Payment Order accordingly. While disposing of the pension case of the petitioner the concerned respondent authorities is also directed to issue post facto approval, if necessary, in favour of the petitioner and release the retiral dues including pension within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of communication of this order.”

6. Being aggrieved, the State of West Bengal preferred an appeal being MAT 890 of 2022. The appeal was disposed of by a judgment and order dated October 13, 2023, with the following observations:

“30. In view of the aforesaid we must hold that the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner was validly appointed by the Municipality in exercise of power under section 53(4) of the 1993 Act as that section stood prior to the 2002 amendment. Hence, neither prior sanction of the State Government for appointment of the writ petitioner was necessary nor can he be denied pensionary benefits. The question of the writ petitioner being appointed in a sanctioned vacant post also does not arise as the post in which he was appointed was one validly created by the Municipality in exercise of power conferred on it by the 1993 Act.

31. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge although we disagree with His Lordship’s reasoning. We therefore do not interfere with the order under appeal. We affirm the operative portion of the order and direct the appellants to release the pensionary benefits of the respondent. No. 1/writ petitioner in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we extend the time period to do so by 8 weeks from date.”

7. It is the said judgment and order dated October 13, 2023, which is under review in the present proceeding institut