Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Kaushik – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Girish Kathpalia, J.
PRELUDE
1. By way of this Review Petition, brought under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the original respondent of the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as "the review applicant") has sought review of final order dated 19.02.2020, whereby the writ petition was allowed by a co- ordinate bench of this court. Since one of the members of the said co- ordinate bench got elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court while the other member demitted office on attaining age of superannuation, by way of orders of the Chief Justice, this Review Petition was assigned to this bench. Although the Review Petition was drafted and filed by a counsel, the review applicant opted to address final arguments in person. We heard the review applicant in person as well as learned counsel for writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the non-applicants").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix relevant for the present purposes is as follows.
2.1. The review applicant was appointed as Junior Draughtsman in the office of Directorate General of Employment and Training (`DGET') on 18.02.1983 in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560, which was revise
The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating merits; mere recommendations do not confer enforceable rights.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and does not allow for re-examination of the merits of a case.
A review application can only succeed on grounds available at initial adjudication; new developments post-decision do not constitute sufficient grounds for review.
Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to apparent errors in the record or new evidence; acceptance of a reduced pay scale upon appointment restricts subsequent claims for higher pay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to pay scale benefits and the rejection of denial of benefits based on FR 22(I)(a)(1) and OM dated June 01, 2001.
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.
Point of Law : Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as Application for review of judgment.
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
