Review jurisdiction is not a re-hearing of matters but corrects errors apparent on the record; thus, decisions on pension computation are binding.

O R D E R

Johnson John, J.

The review petitioners are the petitioners in the above O.P.(KAT).

2. As per judgment dated 20.06.2025, this Court dismissed the Original petition filed by the State of Kerala and others finding that the issue raised in the Original Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Chandran v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC 577].

3. It is contended in the review petition that this Court solely relied on the judgment in Chandran’s case supra without considering the relevant rules and that the respondents have not stated the actual date of their superannuation and as to how many months they continued after the date of their superannuation being teachers, in view of Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR and this Court has also not considered Rule 63(10) of Part III KSR and since the respondents have not made out a case that they were denied the pension in violation of the relevant rules, it is necessary to review and recall the judgment dated 20.06.2025.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the Original Petition, it is stated that the issue raised is covered by the judgment of this Court in O.P. (KAT) No. 438 of 2022 (Chandran’s case supra). It is also pointed out that after the disposal of O.P. (KAT) No.438 of 2022, the State of Kerala has filed a review petition on similar grounds and that grounds C, E, F and G in the present review petition regarding Rule 63(10) of Part III KSR and Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR are highlighted in the review petition filed against the judgment in O.P. (KAT) No. 438 of 2022 and this Court dismissed the review petition and the adjudication of O.P. (KAT) No.438 of 2022 has reached its finality, as the Honourable Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed against the said judgment.

6. The issue involved in the present case and Chandran’s case supra is whether the date of retirement of a Government servant constitutes a valid basis for classification and differential treatment of pensioners in the matter of computation of pension.

7. It is well settled that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and review does not permit re-hearing of the matter on merits. Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code reads thus:

“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 order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(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.”

8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC reads thus:

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