Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Sujatha Aniyeri – Appellant
Versus
Kannur University, Represented By Its Registrar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Muralee Krishna S., J.)
These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the appellants who are retired employees of the 1st respondent Kannur University, challenging the orders dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in R.P. Nos.1169 and in 1149 of 2023 respectively, whereby the judgment dated 16.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.24668 of 2022 and the judgment dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.(C)No.28701 of 2022 were reviewed and the direction to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the retiral or pensionary benefits due to the appellants, in case of failure of the 1st respondent to pay the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment, was vacated. Since the issue to be decided in these writ appeals are the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellant in W.A.No.1818 of 2024 retired from service on 31.01.2017 while holding the post of Assistant Librarian and the appellant in W.A.No.1819 of 2024 retired from service on 30.06.2017 while holding the post of Deputy Librarian at Kannur University. The appellant in W.A.No.1818 of 2024 filed W.P.(C)No.24668 of 2022 and the appellan
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues.
Orders denying interest on salary arrears must include reasons; lack of transparency violates principles of good administration.
Review applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not suffice.
Retiral benefits are a right of the employee, and undue delay in their disbursement by the State can lead to the imposition of interest and costs, reflecting the accountability of public authorities ....
The court emphasized that the power of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to revisit settled issues or arguments.
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 court established the principle that an entity causing delay in the release of retiral benefits is liable to compensate the affected individual and may be directed to pay interest on the delayed ....
A review petition must show an apparent error on the record to succeed, as delay does not extinguish the right to continuing benefits like family pensions.
The court established that review petitions cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law, and must strictly adhere to the grounds specified under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing the lim....
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
