Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

for

the

respondents.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

would

contend that the reliance on the Government Circular

dated 22.05.2004 is erroneous and that the Circular is

issued by the Director of Department of the first petitioner

before this Court and the same is in the teeth of the

Government Order which came to be revoked only in the

year 1987 and that he has passed his examination in

- 3 -

1982. Hence, he is entitled for grant of the additional

increment.

3.

As noted by us, there is no explanation for the

enormous delay of nearly 22 years in making a claim for

the additional increment and this Court while allowing the

writ petition has to place reliance on the Government

Circular dated 22.05.2004 to allow the writ petition and

negate the claim of the petitioner.

4.

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner would

virtually argue on the correctness of the findings rendered

by this Court. These are grounds that are required to be

urged in a properly constituted appeal and not by way of

review. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision

of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.Madhusudhan

Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others,¹ wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraphs 24 and 27 has held as

under:

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034

- 4 -

“24. After discussing a series of decisions on

review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati,

this Court observed that review proceedings have to

be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order

XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be

raised in the review application has already been

dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to

challenge the impugned judgment only because an

alternative view is possible. The principles for

exercising

review

jurisdiction

were

succinctly

summarized in the captioned case as below:

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following

grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by

the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or

evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,

was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could

not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the

record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been

interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by

this Court in Moran Mar Bassellos Catholicos v. Most

Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason

sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those

- 5 -

specified in the rule". The same principles have been

reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese &

Iron Ores Ltd.,.

[20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-]

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not

enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the

original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material

error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines

its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in

disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-

heard and corrected but lies only for patent

error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject

cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record

should not be an error which has to be fished out and

searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully

within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be

permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief

sought at the time of arguing the main matter had

been negatived.”

- 6 -

27. In the captioned judgment, the term 'mistake or

error apparent’ has been discussed in the following

words:

"22.

The

term

'mistake

or

error

apparent' by its very connotation

signifies an error which is evident per

se from the re