IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Bishwanath Prasad Son Of Late Rajkeshwar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant review petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner, who was appellant in LPA No. 461 of 2024, seeking review of order dated 10.09.2024 whereby and whereunder Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix:
2. Before proceeding to examine the availability of ground seeking review, the facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, needs to refer herein, which reads as under:
3. The father of the writ petitioner, while working on the post of clerk in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, died in harness on 23.11.1996. Thereafter, the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 08.08.1998 recommended for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of clerk. In pursuant thereto, respondent-authority vide memo no.1122(ii) dated 02.09.1998 directed to issue appointment letter to the appellant-writ petitioner but the said appointment letter was not issued, as such, the appellant-writ petitioner made representation dated 15.01.1999 before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
Thereafter, vide
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors.
State of Orissa and anr. v. Mamata Mohanty
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors.
Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh
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 applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not suffice.
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.
A belated claim for service-related benefits is generally barred by delay and laches unless it arises from a continuing wrong, which was not established in this case.
Compassionate appointment claims must be made promptly after the employee's death, as excessive delays negate entitlement due to changes in financial circumstances, establishing that such appointment....
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues.
Compassionate appointment claims must adhere to established policy principles and be granted uniformly to similarly situated individuals despite filing delays, with arrears limited to three years bef....
The court upheld that employees appointed on compassionate grounds are entitled to be treated as regular employees from their appointment date, ensuring equal pay and benefits as dictated by establis....
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 that similarly situated employees are entitled to the same benefits as previously determined in comparable cases, ensuring equity in compassionate appointments and rectifying pa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.