Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1017393
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ravindra Maithani, J
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSS 3528 / 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dinesh Gahtori
For the Respondents: Narain Dutt
The scope of review jurisdiction is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be utilized as a mechanism for re-hearing the merits, introducing new evidence, or challenging a judgment on the basis of a difference of opinion.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review jurisdiction - Scope - Error apparent on the face of the record - Review is a restricted remedy and does not constitute a re-hearing of the original matter - An application for review is not maintainable unless the applicant demonstrates a latent error that is self-evident and does not require extensive investigation or re-argument of the merits - Jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely on the premise that an alternative view is possible or that new information is being presented for the first time. (Paras 9, 11)
(B) Service Law - Pay parity - Government orders - Judicial review of service matters - Where a tribunal or court has already adjudicated upon the validity of government orders concerning salary grades and pay anomalies, the mere existence of subsequent administrative actions or different interpretations of benefits does not warrant the recalling or modifying of a concluded judgment. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought a review of a judgment previously delivered, which had favored the petitioners regarding claims for enhanced grade pay and salary benefits based on specific government orders. The applicants contended that new information regarding service benefits granted to the petitioners under different schemes was not available during the initial proceedings and that this warranted a review of the previous findings.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the original judgment had already considered the relevant government orders and the nature of the pay anomaly in question. It found that the arguments raised in the review application were essentially a re-agitation of matters already deliberated upon and did not establish any error apparent on the face of the record.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the review application under the relevant procedural code and whether the discovery of subsequent information constituted a sufficient ground to review a judgment that had already addressed the legality of the administrative decisions involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the power of review is narrowly confined to correcting patent errors within the record. Since the findings in the substantive judgment were based on an analysis of the contested government orders and were logically consistent, the introduction of subsequent service-related information did not constitute an error apparent, and therefore, no legal ground existed to interfere with the final decision.
Result: Review application dismissed.
Heard on Delay Condonation Application 9843 of 2024.
2. There are good grounds to condone the delay in filing the review application. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned.
3. Instant writ petition was decided on 10.07.2024.
4. Now a Review Application No. 9841 of 2024 has been filed.
5. In the petition, the petitioners had challenged the Government Order dated 24.07.2017, by which the respondents State rejected the representation of the petitioners for claiming the benefit of the Government Order dated 27.07.2015. The petitioners have also claimed the benefit of the Government Order dated 26.07.2015, by which the grade pay of two cadres have been increased. The facts have been stated in the judgment dated 10.07.2024 of this Court in para 3 as follows:
“3. It is the case of the petitioners that initially they were appointed on the post of Assistant Operator in the UPRS Department on 03.08.2009. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Head Operator in the month of July, 2013. They are part of Police Department; they are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Subordinate Service Rules, 1982 (“1982 Rules”), which were framed under the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 . In the UPRS Department, there are various posts namely, Assistant Radio Officer, Radio Inspector, Radio Anurakshan Adhikari, Radio Kendra Adhikari, Head Operator/Mechanic and Assistant Operator.”
6. Now, review application has been filed on the ground that the respondents/State has got certain information which was not available when the petition was decided and it makes out a ground for review. In paras 4, 5, 6, & 7 of the review application the following grounds have been taken as follows:-
“4. Because this Hon’ble court has relied upon certain parts of the information provided to Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Counsel for the Petitioners under the R.T.I Act (Right to Information Act, 2005). However, the paragraph no 4 of the impugned Government Order dated 24-7-2015 (annexure no 8 of the writ petition) in which it clearly mentioned that benefit of the Government Order dated 27-7-2015 (annexure no 5 of the writ petition), upgrading grade pay from Rs.4200/ to Rs. 4600/ already been given to the personnel appointed as Constable and Head Constable in all branches of police like Intelligence Department/PAC/IRB/FIRE/Transport Branch of Police Department etc in form of the ACP/ under the provisions of the ACP scheme and on same line, they (petitioners) should also be given the benefit of upgrading the grade pay from Rs.4200/ to Rs. 4600, was not considered and deliberated in the judgment and order dated 10-7-2024.
5. Because the benefit of the Government Order dated 27-7-2015 (annexure no 5 of the writ petition) was given to drivers, constables, head constables, Fireman etc either who were in the cadre of sub inspector or to those who were getting grade pay of Rs. 4600 of Sub Inspector by virtue of benefits of Assured Carrier Progression (ACP) scheme irrespective of their post. Petitioners were also benefitted by this provision of Assured Carrier Progression (ACP)/MACP Scheme. Vide order dated 21-10-2023, on the recommendation of screening committee, on completion of 10 years of regular and satisfactory service from the date of joining in promotional head operator post/additional Sub Inspector, the benefit of second Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Grade pay of Rs. 4600/ accorded to the Petitioners (figured at Sr no. 2, 3, 4, 18, 20, 35, 55, 57 and 59 except the Petitioner no 1 Vinod kumar Sharma who resigned from the department in the year 2019 and presently posted in Law Department, Dehradun Uttarakhand) as per provisions of Government Order dated 17-2-2017 related to MACP Scheme and clause 01 of the Government Order dated 27-7-2015 (annexure no 5 of the writ petition), which clearly and specifically stated that the salary of the concerned posts holders in police department i.e.
