The court allows review of its previous judgment due to the non-production of crucial evidence and documents, which misled the court regarding the salary fixation and entitlement to advance increments upon promotion in the academic staff.

ORDER :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This review petition is filed by the appellants in W.A. No.1689 of 2018, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in that writ appeal.

2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the review petitioners/appellants, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent University of Kerala.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that at the time of hearing the writ appeal, Appendix I of Ext.P1 G.O. (P) No.58/2010 /H.Edn. dated 27.03.2010 was not before this Court, since the 1^st respondent did not produce it along with Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The review petitioners have now produced Appendix I of Ext.P1 as Annexure A1 along with this review petition. The calculation of salary in case of promotion from one academic grade pay to another in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in accordance with Clause 10 of Annexure A1. But this Court had no opportunity to go through Annexure A1 at the time of passing the judgment. Similarly, at the time of the argument of the appeal, the review petitioners relied on Regulation 9.10 of the UGC REGULATIONS 2010. But in fact, it was Regulation 10.4 which ought to have been pointed out to this Court. If Clause 10 of Annexure A1 and Regulation 10.4 of UGC REGULATIONS 2010 were pointed out to this Court, the result of the writ appeal would have been different.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent argued that this Court passed the judgment based on previous judgments of this Court. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.

5. In order to understand the dispute that was involved in the writ petition and subsequently in the writ appeal, which ultimately resulted in the filing of this review petition, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts borne out from the pleadings. The 1^st respondent was initially appointed as Lecturer in the college of the 2^nd respondent, which is an aided college, with effect from 06.06.1994. He was placed as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 06.06.2000 and then as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 06.06.2005. While in service, the 1^st respondent acquired Ph.D. on 17.03.2007. The post of Selection Grade Lecturer was meanwhile redesignated as Assistant Professor. 1^st respondent was given placement as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008. Based on Ext.P1 Order dated 27.03.2010 issued in implementation of 6^th UGC Scheme and Ext.P2 Order dated 03.09.2013 issued clarifying Ext.P1 by the Government, by Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014 the 1^st petitioner/1^st appellant sanctioned two advance increments to the 1^st respondent and with effect from 17.03.2007 his pay was raised to Rs.24,070/- with AGP Rs.8,000/- from Rs.23,230/- with AGP Rs.8,000/-. However, the said benefits were withdrawn when the 1^st respondent was placed as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008. The 1^st respondent, thereafter, submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 24.10.2014 to the 1^st petitioner requesting to restore the benefits. Thereupon, the 1^st petitioner issued Ext.P4 letter informing him that his pay was revised to Rs.38,800/- + AGP Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.09.2008, with the next increment on the normal date. But, immediately after Ext.P4 communication, the 1^st petitioner issued Ext.P5 order holding that the 1^st respondent is not eligible for revised advance increment with effect from 01.09.2008 in view of the clarific