The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.221 of 2025 Union of India and others …. Petitioners Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel -versus- Banani Das …. Opp. Party None CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 19.09.2025
Decision
ORDER 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioners in this case, who were also the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20614 of 2025, have sought for review of the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Bench. While disposing of the writ petition, the following orders have been passed:- “After going through the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunal has specifically taken into account that the 100-point formula came subsequently which was not prevailing at the time of death of the father of the opp. party and taking into account the ratio laid down in the cases of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. -Vrs.- Ashish Awasthi and Ors. reported in (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases Page 1 of 5 157 and Malaya Nanda Sethi -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in AIR 2022 SC 2836, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the opp. party is entitled to get the relief and the delay whatsoever is not attributable to her. it may be, In view of the above, we find that there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed”. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into account the important rules governing the filed thereby materially affecting the result and when the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi (supra) and Ashish Awasthi (supra) are not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case, the Learned Tribunal following the ratio of the said decision has erroneously directed the petitioners to appoint the opp. party on compassionate ground in any suitable post within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy the order and this Court did not interfere with it, which requires to be reviewed as it is an error apparent on the face of the record. He placed reliance on the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Local Administration Department - Vrs.- M. Selvanavagam @ Kumaravelu reported in AIR 2011 SC 1880, wherein it was observed that an appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to Page 2 of 5 his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. It is the case of the opposite party that her father who was working as Senior Tax Assistant under the petitioners breathed his last prematurely on 13.01.2003 and in order to overcome the financial difficulties, an application was submitted on 14.10.2003 seeking employment assistance on compassionate ground in favour of the opp. party. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Awasthi (supra) is that the scheme prevalent as on the death of the deceased employee is to be considered which was also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi (supra). However, the petitioners rejected the claim of the opp. party by applying the DoP&T dated 16.01.2013, which was not in existence when her father expired and application was submitted. It is the further case of the opp. party that the delay in consideration of appointment on compassionate ground is not attributable to her and the technical pleas taken by the petitioners for the purpose of defeating legitimate claim of the opp. party is not justified. At this juncture, it is pertinent to examine the contours of review jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent pronouncement in Malleeswari -Vrs.- K. Suguna and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, after drawing guidance from earlier decisions in Parsion Devi - Vrs.- Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, Lily Page 3 of 5 Thomas -Vrs.-Union of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, Inderchand Jain -Vrs.- Motila reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663, Shivdev Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab (supra), Hari Vishnu Kamath -Vrs.-Syed Ahmad Ishaque reported in (1954) 2 SCC 881, T.C. Basappa -Vrs.- T. Nagappa reported in (1954) 1 SCC 905, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde -Vrs.- Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 and Chhajju Ram -Vrs.- Nek 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11, has restated the scope and ambit of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court crystallized the principles as follows:- “17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Page 4 of 5 17.3 Lastly, the phrase „for any other sufficient reason‟ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.” Thus, the jurisdiction of review is of a very limited nature. It is intended only to correct a manifest error or to consider material which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. An error apparent on the face of the record that is, a patent and self-evident mistake which does not require elaborate reasoning, possibility as well may also furnish a ground for review. Likewise, the phrase “any other sufficient reason” has been judicially construed to mean reasons analogous to the discovery of new evidence or error apparent, and cannot be invoked to re-agitate settled issues. Thus, the scope of review is restrictive and circumscribed, standing in sharp contrast to the wider jurisdiction exercised in appeal. A review is not an appeal in disguise, and re-evaluation of facts or law to substitute one plausible view with another is outside the permissible scope. For the forgoing reasons, the Review Petition deserves no merit, hence the prayer made in the petition is not acceded to. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Pravakar Date: 20-Sep-2025 16:50:40 Judge (S.S. Mishra) Page 5 of 5