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.

JUDGMENT :

Seeking review of Order dated 26^th October, 2022 passed by this Court in W.A. No.198 of 2018 (Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and Others Vrs. Jayram Behera and Others), having withdrawn Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No.4115 of 2023, on 29^th March, 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the review petitioners filed this review petition.

Submissions of counsel for respective parties:

2. It is contended by Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that affidavit dated 26^th April, 2017 sworn to by the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Jajpur Road and affidavit dated 10th July, 2017 affirmed by the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Bhubaneswar, as available on record, were not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19546 of 2016 by Order dated 15th January, 2018.

2.1. It is strenuously urged that the Division Bench in Writ Appeal should have appreciated the facts stated in affidavit dated 26th April, 2017, that Sri Jayram Behera performed his duty till 31st May, 2009 and in affidavit dated 10^th July, 2017, it is stated that Sri Goura Chandra Praharaj performed his duty till April, 2009. By taking into consideration said affidavits, the Division Bench of this Court ought to have shown indulgence in the Order of the learned Single Judge.

3. Sri Dayananda Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri M.R. Pradhan, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 per contra submitted that the grounds contained in the review petition cannot be construed to have fallen within the ken of review.

3.1. Having withdrawn the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging Order dated 26th October, 2022 passed in the writ appeal, the petitioners have waived their right for consideration of the matter on merit and it is not open for the counsel for the petitioners to reargue and reagitate the issue which have already been dealt in the impugned orders. Since there no error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.

Hearing:

4. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dayananda Mohapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.3.

Consideration:

5. Having perused the Order dated 26^th October, 2022 passed in the writ appeal, it is manifest that the Division Bench of this Court has taken cognizance of the fact as affirmed in the counter affidavit. It is profitable to quote paragraph 3 of the said order hereunder:

“3. In para 8 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has extracted para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Appellant-Corporation where it is stated as under:

‘5. That, in reply to averments made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the opposite party No.2 has declared the petitioners as surplus category of employee through his Letter No.22267 dt.26.12.2005 and the authority has decided to retrench zero/ surplus employees, since the case of the petitioners is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, they have not been retrenched.’ ”

5.1. It is emphatically submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned Advocate that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to arrear salary after 31.05.2009 and 30.04.2009, i.e., the period for which they had not worked, though they were not retrenched. However, in the review petition it is admitted by the petitioners that in pursuance of Order dated 10.01.2019 passed in O.J.C. No.8539 of 2000 filed by the opposite party Nos.1 and