A review petition is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used for re-hearing. Additionally, termination of service is ineffective unless the employer provides evidence that the termination order was duly served upon the employee concerned.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

2. The review petitioners by way of instituting the present review petition have prayed for a review of the order dated 06.02.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C).No.3635/2017.

3. The facts leading to the institution of the present Review Petition being relevant is noticed, as hereunder.

The petitioners in WP(C).No.3635/2017, had instituted the said writ petition raising a grievance with regard to the non release of the salaries of their respective husbands w.e.f. August, 2007, till the date of their death, with a further prayer for authorizing to them family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by their deceased husbands. It was projected in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner no.1, Late Pradip Dutta was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in No.607 Begenagara Amlakhiguri Lower Primary School, Dhemaji, in the year 1989, and he had continued to render service in such capacity till the date of his death occasioning on 08.05.2015. Likewise, it was projected that the husband of the petitioner no.2, Late Ghana Saikia @ Ghana Kanta Saikia, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Ghinai Lower Primary School, Dhemaji, in the year 1989, and he had also continued to discharge his duties in such capacity till his death occasioning on 11.06.2015. In the writ petition it was projected that the husbands of the petitioners by raising a grievance with regard to non release of their salaries, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.653/2008. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 25.04.2008, requiring the Departmental authorities to place the case of the petitioners before the Expert Committee constituted in terms of the decision of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2006, in WP (C) No. 2147/1999 [ Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar Vs. State of Assam and Ors. , (2006) (2) GLT 2016]. It was thereafter projected that the husbands of the petitioners continued to discharge their services in the respective Schools till the date of their death, however without being authorized any salaries.

It was further categorically stated in the said writ petitions by the petitioners that the services of their respective husbands were never terminated and no termination order came to be served to their husbands during their respective service tenures. It is submitted that the husbands of the petitioners had received respective salaries till July, 2007. In support of their case the petitioners had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam and Ors. /b>., (2016) 1 SCC 622. The respondent authorities had filed an affidavit in the above writ petition and therein, had contended that the husbands of the petitioners were appointed in the year 1989, against non existent post without following any selection process. It was also projected that the services of the husbands of the petitioners were terminated vide an order dated 12.05.1992. It was further projected that around 752 numbers of teachers came to be terminated in the year 1992, in Dhemaji and Lakhimpur Districts, and the names of the husbands of the peti