Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 54 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs North Block Central Secretarial New Delhi 110001 2 - The Director General Crpf Cgo Complex Block No. 1, Lodhi Road New Delhi – 110003 3 - The Inspector General M.P. Sector Crpf Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 4 - The Inspector General Crpf Headquarter Crpf Sector 17 Atal Nagar (New Raipur ) Chhattisgarh 5 - The Deputy Inspector General M.P. Sector Gc Crpf Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 6 - The Director (Accounts) Pay And Account Division Crpf, New Delhi Pushpa Bhavan Madangir New Delhi 100062 ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
the order dated 06/08/2024 passed by this Court in writ appeal No. 58/2020 whereby the writ appeal filed by the writ appellant/ review petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner sought review of the order dated 06/08/2024 on the ground that the retirement age for all ranks of CRPF members were enhanced from 57 years to 60 years vide MHA order No. F.N. 45020/1/2019/Legal-1 dated 19/08/2019 which was in compliance of the order passed by Delhi High Court dated 31/01/2019 in WPC No. 1951/2012 and order dated 04/2/2019 passed in WPC No. 695/2019. There is discrimination in the prescribed age prevailing in different armed forces and also amongst different officers. There was a direction of Delhi High Court to the controlling Ministry of all the armed forces to make a uniform age for superannuation for all classes of employees either 60 years or 57 years and thereafter the MHA issued an order on 19/08/2019 deciding the superannuation age as 60 years for all the officers.
Arguments
1 - Hira Mani Kurmbanshi S/o Shri Ram Tahal Kurmvanshi Aged About 62 Years Posted As Inspector /gd, (Now Ex Insp/ Gd) E/65 Bn Crpf Tulsi Baradera Mandir Hasaud New Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General K. Radhika, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board On 12.03.2025 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. The present review petition has been filed by the union of India for review of
Decision
The writ petitioner was retired on 30.06.2019 i.e. before passing the order dated 19/08/2019 by MHA but by the impugned order dated 19/08/2019, the writ petitioner was entitled to rejoin in service till 60 years of his age. The writ petitioner had submitted the option certificate acknowledging the terms and conditions mentioned in call letter dated 01/10/2019 and he rejoined his services on 11/11/2019 on no work no pay from the date of his superannuation till his rejoined in service. 3. The MHA vide their memo dated 14/08/2023 has intimated that issue was examined in consultation with department of P & T, department of expenditure, department of pensioner and pensioner welfare and clarified 3 that the intervening period between retirement and rejoining in service may be regularized by granting fine of leave issue but the persons who retired after attaining age of 57 years and rejoined on the enhancement of retirement age of 60 years have not been entitled for any arrear of pay in between the period of his retirement till rejoining under the principles of no work no pay but by the impugned order, the writ petitioner was held entitled for all the consequential benefits which will have affect jeopardize the settled rules/ instructions of the force and the same may be reviewed. 4. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- "Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- 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. (emphasis supplied) (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 applied 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 4 the review of such judgment." 5. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning. can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 6. The petitioner has sought rehearing of the writ appeal by way of this review petition which is not permissible. Further, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for review. 7. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.20 10:58:05 +0530