Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, CJ., Rajesh Sekhri
Tarsem Lal S/o Sh. Tara Chand – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Secretary To Govt – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tashi Rabstan CJ:
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner in terms of Rule 51 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2014 passed in SWP No. 593/2012, MP No. 921/2012 titled Tarsem Lal Vs. Union of India and others.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor vide order No. 1713/Rectt/16/E1B2 dated 03.08.2004 in Military Engineering Service (MES) by respondent No. 3 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200-(2550) plus usual allowance. He was on probation for a period of two years. His services were governed by the Civil Defence Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 [“Rules of 1965”]. The respondents terminated the petitioner’s services vide order dated 31.10.2009 in reference to Explanation at Srl (viii) (a) Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 967/JK/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, questioning the order of termination dated 31.10.2009 on the ground that Sub Rule (VIII) (a) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965 was not applicable to him because he had a
Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the case or substitute a new view.
The scope of review is limited to considering only an error apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be used as a tool for changing the opinion/view of the court, and it is essential that ....
A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a review.
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.
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 power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
The court emphasized that review powers are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to substitute a previous judgment or reargue the case.
A review of a judgment is permissible only on specific grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence, and cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new c....
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
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
