A review petition may be maintained only upon discovery of new evidence or manifest errors; it cannot serve as an appeal to reconsider resolved issues.

ORDER :

1. Heard on I.A. No. 4282/2025, which is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of 9 days in filing the petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 4282/2025 is allowed and delay of 9 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.

The instant review petition under Order 47 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed seeking review of order dated 15/01/2025 passed in W.A. No.2840/2024, whereby the writ appeal has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in Food Corporation of India and was posted at Waidhan depot under Food Corporation of India Divisional Office at Satna in the year 1984. While being posted a case was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI” for short) and the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted under Section 409 of IPC and Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, vide judgment dated 29/03/2000. Being aggrieved by said judgment, petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 900/2000 before this Court, which is pending adjudication. Owing to his conviction in the case involving misappropriation of funds and criminal breach of trust as well as corruption, the respondents passed an order of termination of service in terms of regulation 63(1) of FCI staff Regulation 1971 and imposed a penalty of dismissal. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 2280/2004, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25/09/2024 by learned Single Judge. Against the said order of dismissal, petitioner filed W.A. No. 2840/2024, which also got dismissed vide order dated 15/01/2025. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, petitioner has filed instant petition.

3. Petitioner submits that he has been terminated from services on account of his conviction and without holding any departmental inquiry by order dated 10/08/2000. The dismissal order was issued in view of regulation 63(1) of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971, which provides a provisions for special procedure in certain cases. However, this provision does not say anywhere for forfeiting the gratuity of the employee in view of the provisions contained in Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, on these grounds, the order passed in writ petition deserves to be reviewed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Writ Court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:-

“Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code;

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

7. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgmen