Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SHAMIMA JAHAN
State Of Assam Represented By Smt. Ranjana Barua, Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Revenue And Disaster Management Deptt. – Appellant
Versus
Dimbeswar Barua, S/o Champaram Barua – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical context of selection, pension scheme applicability, and judicial dispute background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. assessment of maintainability of a review petition based on discovery of new facts versus re-argument of merits. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. legal criteria defining error apparent on the face of the record for review jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. evaluation of merit regarding pension entitlements and final rejection of the review petition. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.
Heard Mr. D Mazumdar, learned Senior State Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Nath for the review petitioner and Mr D Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. This application was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 21.07.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 5072/2007. Before going into the facts narrated in the review petition as well as the law, this Court would like to narrate the detail facts involved in the said case.
FACTS:
3. It is the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5066 of 2016 that an advertisement was is
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors manifest on the face of the record or considering newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-argue merits or corre....
Candidates selected for government service prior to the implementation of a new pension scheme are entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme if the delay in their appointment is attributable....
Review applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not suffice.
The court ruled that the delay in appointment does not justify denying the Old Pension Scheme benefits to petitioners, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
A review of a judgment can only be granted on the basis of new and important evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record; findings that arise after the judgment do not constitute valid gr....
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
