Error apparent on record justified review intervention under CPC provisions.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking a review of the judgment passed by this Court dated 02.04.2025 in O.P(CAT) No.32 of

2020.

2. The review petitioners, who are the respondents in O.P(CAT)

No.32/2020 before this Court, are aggrieved by the common order dismissing the Original Petitions filed by the Union of India and allowing the O.P(CAT)s filed by the applicants. The order granted the same benefits to the applicants as those awarded in O.A.No.417/2013 and connected cases, with a direction to count 50% of the service of Commission Bearer/Vendor towards qualifying service for pension. The grievance of the review petitioners is that the O.P(CAT) No.32/2020 was filed to seek a declaration that the applicant therein is entitled to MACP-III in PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 plus GP 4600 with effect from 02.04.2011, along with consequential benefits such as arrears, and to quash Annexure-A2 rejection letter.

3. While delivering judgment in O.P(CAT) No.32/2020, this Court concluded that the issue was “no longer res integra,” as it had been previously decided by a Division Bench in a similar case, which directed the implementation of relief similar to that granted in O.A.No.417/2013 and connected cases—specifically, counting 50% of the service of Commission Bearer/Vendor towards qualifying service for pension.

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that without a comprehensive examination of the factual matrix and legal principles involved, this Court erroneously arrived at an incorrect conclusion. It was further contended that the impugned judgment fails to consider pertinent aspects related to financial upgradations under the MACP scheme. The counsel also pointed out an apparent error on the face of the record, emphasizing that the issues, relief sought, and statutory provisions involved are distinct and not comparable. Reliance on pension-related precedents, it was argued, the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable in the context of a claim based on the MACP scheme. Therefore, the petitioner requests that the impugned judgment in O.P(CAT) No.32/2020 be reviewed and recalled. 5. Heard.

6. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

“1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

Explanation. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”

“114. 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