IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103) RA-CW-465-2025 in CWP-22082-2024 Date of Decision : November 03, 2025 Dr. Harvinder Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners.

Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.1-UOI.

Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Varun Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent-UT.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. Present application has been filed for review of the order dated 29.08.2025 passed in CWP No.22082 of 2024. The present case is decided along with CWP No.15912 of 2024 and connected cases.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits that keeping in view the facts and law noticed in the said order, the finding that has been recorded that the petitioners were not entitled for the salary for the period which they did not perform the duties, is not correct hence, keeping in view the fact that the similarly situated employees, who had earlier approached the appropriate Court for claiming the said benefit, were granted the same, the same benefit should have been given to the review-

applicant herein.

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-

petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. The scope of the review is limited. It is being projected by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners that keeping in view the facts and law which have been noticed in the order being reviewed, the view taken was not permissible and same needs to be corrected, the said aspect does not fall within the domain of the review rather the same is falls in the domain of appeal.

5. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicants cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

“5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also