Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues or mitigate delays without sufficient grounds.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

These writ appeals are filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, by the appellants who are retired employees of the 1^st respondent Kannur University, challenging the orders dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in R.P. Nos.1169 and in 1149 of 2023 respectively, whereby the judgment dated 16.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.24668 of 2022 and the judgment dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.(C)No.28701 of 2022 were reviewed and the direction to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the retiral or pensionary benefits due to the appellants, in case of failure of the 1^st respondent to pay the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment, was vacated. Since the issue to be decided in these writ appeals are the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant in W.A.No.1818 of 2024 retired from service on 31.01.2017 while holding the post of Assistant Librarian and the appellant in W.A.No.1819 of 2024 retired from service on 30.06.2017 while holding the post of Deputy Librarian at Kannur University. The appellant in W.A.No.1818 of 2024 filed W.P.(C)No.24668 of 2022 and the appellant in W.A.No.1819 of 2024 filed W.P.(C)No.28701 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant them full terminal benefits including the DCRG, leave surrender value, etc., with 10% interest and also seeking some other ancillary reliefs. The appellants contended that they were granted promotion to their respective posts under valid orders of the University and, therefore, there is no reason to deny pensionary and retiral benefits to them. The 1^st respondent University took a stand in the writ petitions that full disbursement of the appellant’s retiral and pensionary benefits was held up as it was objected by the audit department. According to the University, the Audit Department raised the objection that the promotion of the appellants in the years 2011 and 2017 respectively was irregular and granted without their probation in the earlier post being validly declared. After considering the rival contentions, pleadings, and materials on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the University to pay full eligible retiral and pensionary benefits due to the appellants dehors any audit objection with respect to their promotion in the years 2011 and 2017 respectively and subject to every other criterion being satisfied, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The learned Single Judge further directed the 1^st respondent University to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the due amount from the date on which it became due until it is actually paid if it fails to pay the amount as directed.

3. The 1^st respondent University later filed R.P. No.1169 of 2023 and R.P.No.1149 of 2023 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), seeking to review the judgments in the respective writ petitions to the extent it directs the 1^st respondent to pay interest, contending that the entire amount due to the appellants was paid, though not within the time limit stipulated in the judgment. The 1^st respondent contended in the review petition that a substantial portion of the amount was paid on 22.02.2023 and the entire liability was discharged on 03.04.2023. It was admitted that there was a delay of nearly 5 months in paying the amount and further stated that the delay occurred since the University was awaiting concurrence from the Government on account of certain audit objections. The appellant