Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Jagdish Prasad, S/o. Late Nilkanth Mahto - Respondent
Civil Review No. 56 of 2021
Decided On : 25-04-2024
[REVIEW] - [Civil Review Application] - [Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, Jharkhand High Court Rules, Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India] - [The court discussed the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, emphasizing that a review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law. The court highlighted that the reliance on the case of Ram Naresh Singh was misplaced as it was not a binding precedent, and the review petitioners failed to demonstrate any new evidence or error warranting a review. The court concluded that the review petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.]
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was filed against a previous order that directed the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) to pay gratuity to retired employees who retained company quarters. The petitioners argued that the reliance on the Ram Naresh Singh case was misplaced as it was not a judgment but an order, and they contended that the subsequent judgment in Raghbendra Singh clarified this point.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review petitioners did not provide sufficient grounds for review under the established legal framework. It reiterated that the review process is not an appeal and cannot be used to challenge previous decisions based on subsequent judgments. The court emphasized that the reliance on the Ram Naresh Singh case was not valid as it did not constitute a binding precedent.
Issues: Whether the subsequent judgment in Raghbendra Singh can be a ground for reviewing the earlier decision based on the Ram Naresh Singh case, and whether the review petitioners demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a review can only be granted on specific grounds such as discovery of new evidence or apparent errors in the record. The mere fact that a subsequent judgment alters the interpretation of law does not provide grounds for review. The court reaffirmed that the review process is not a means to reargue the case or challenge the merits of the previous decision.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed as the court found no grounds for review under the applicable legal standards.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. 1273 of 2022
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and being satisfied with the grounds shown, the limitation petition is allowed and delay of 24 days in filing the instant Civil Review application is condoned.
2. I.A. No.1273 of 2022 stands disposed of.
Civil Review No.56 of 2021
3. This review petition is against the order dated 20.01.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.159 of 2018 and analogues cases, whereby and whereunder, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeals in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017).
4. The ground for review in this review petition is that subsequent to the order passed by the Letters Patent Appeal Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court has come out with the view in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. Raghbendra Singh & Ors. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).11025/2020, and has been pleased to hold that the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017) is not a judgment and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh Vrs. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No.4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced.
Facts
5. Before considering the issue of review, it needs to refer herein the factual aspects, as per the pleading made on behalf of the appellants (petitioners herein) before the Letters Patent Appeal Court, which reads as under:
6. It is the case of the review petitioner that the SAIL did not withhold any gratuity of its employees. The amount equivalent to gratuity was deposited as security money in lieu of retention of company's quarter. The security amount is refunded only on vacation of retained quarter after deducting of all necessary dues.
7. It is the further case of the review petitioners/appellants that the respondent had given the consent for retaining security deposit (equivalent to their gratuity money) on their own will through a declaration and no unauthorized act has been committed by the appellants/the review petitioners.
8. It is the further case that the security deposit is refundable only, after vacation of retained quarter in question. As per companies' retention policy, all the dues are deducted from the security money deposited to the company. The Management has right to gainful utilization of the company's idle assets and all the respondents know that penal rent will be charged if quarter is not vacated beyond the period as mentioned in the respective order. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. The Management does not retain a gratuity of its retired employees and it was released along with all other retiral benefits. Those employees, who retain company's quarter after retirement, deposit security money to the Management on their own will and no interest is paid on the security deposit. Thereafter, the Management of appellants issued retention order as per Rules of the Company regarding retention of quarter.
10. As per retention policy, security deposit only can be refunded after deducting penal rent, electricity charges and water charges etc. after vacation of retained quarter by the respondent. The security deposit is given by retiring employees on their own will in lieu of not vacating company's quarter after operation.
11. It is the further case that the Management does not withhold any gratuity amount. The superannuating employees deposit security money in lieu of quarter retention and if the respondents retained respective quarters beyond authorized retention period (mentioned in their respective retention order), they were liable to pay penal rent according to retention policy of the appellant company.
12. The appeal being LPA. No. 159 of 2018 has been preferred by the Steel Authority of India
AI
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....
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.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
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
