Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK RVWPET No.21 of 2025 (Arising out of Order dated 26.10.2022 passed in W.A. No.198 of 2018 directed against Order dated 15.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.19546 of 2016) 1. Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. *** represented through Managing Director Plot No.N-17/2, Nayapalli Bhubaneswar – 751 012 District: Khordha. 2. The Executive Engineer Lift Irrigation Division Jajpur Road At/P.O.: Dalla District: Jajpur. 3. The Executive Engineer Lift Irrigation Division Bhubaneswar At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. … Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. Jayaram Behera Son of Late Bhajani Behera At: Bodhakhandi Jagiri P.O.: Sisilo, P.S.: Balipatna District: Khordha. RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 1 of 28 2. Goura Chandra Praharaj Son of Late Dayanidhi Rath At/P.O.: Atanda, P.S.: Balijhari District: Cuttack. 3. State of Odisha, Represented through Additional Chief Secretary to Government Water Resources Department, At: Rajiv Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : M/s. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi and A. Parida, Advocates For the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Gyana Ranjan Mahapatra, Manas Ranjan Pradhan, P.K. Singh Deo and A.K. Pradhan, Advocates For the Opposite Party No.3 : Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 30.10.2025 RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 2 of 28 JUDGMENT Seeking review of Order dated 26th October, 2022 passed by this Court in W.A. No.198 of 2018 (Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and Others Vrs. Jayram Behera and Others), having withdrawn Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No.4115 of 2023, on 29th March, 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the review petitioners filed this review petition. Submissions of counsel for respective parties: 2.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended by Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that affidavit dated 26th April, 2017 sworn to by the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Jajpur Road and affidavit dated 10th July, 2017 affirmed by the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Bhubaneswar, as available on record, were not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19546 of 2016 by Order dated 15th January, 2018. 2.1. It is strenuously urged that the Division Bench in Writ Appeal should have appreciated the facts stated in affidavit dated 26th April, 2017, that Sri Jayram Behera performed his duty till 31st May, 2009 and in affidavit dated 10th July, 2017, it is stated that Sri Goura Chandra Praharaj performed his duty till April, 2009. By taking into consideration said affidavits, the Division RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 3 of 28 Bench of this Court ought to have shown indulgence in the Order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Sri Dayananda Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri M.R. Pradhan, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 per contra submitted that the grounds contained in the review petition cannot be construed to have fallen within the ken of review. 3.1. Having withdrawn the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging Order dated 26th October, 2022 passed in the writ appeal, the petitioners have waived their right for consideration of the matter on merit and it is not open for the counsel for the petitioners to reargue and reagitate the issue which have already been dealt in the impugned orders. Since there no error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. Hearing: 4. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dayananda Mohapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.3. Consideration: RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 4 of 28 5. Having perused the Order dated 26th October, 2022 passed in the writ appeal, it is manifest that the Division Bench of this Court has taken cognizance of the fact as affirmed in the counter affidavit. It is profitable to quote paragraph 3 of the said order hereunder: “3. In para 8 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has extracted para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Appellant-Corporation where it is stated as under: ‘5. That, in reply to averments made in paragraph- 6 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the opposite party No.2 has declared the petitioners as surplus category of employee through his Letter No.22267 dt.26.12.2005 and the authority has decided to retrench zero/ surplus employees, since the case of the petitioners is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, they have not been retrenched.’ ” 5.1. It is emphatically submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned Advocate that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to arrear salary after 31.05.2009 and 30.04.2009, i.e., the period for which they had not worked, though they were not retrenched. However, in the review petition it is admitted by the petitioners that in pursuance of Order dated 10.01.2019 passed in O.J.C. No.8539 of 2000 filed by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 they are absorbed in service in the existing vacancies of the Odisha Lift Irrigation RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 5 of 28 Corporation Ltd. in the scale of pay Rs.35,400/- — Rs.1,12,400/- in Level-9 (Cell-I) of Pay Matrix as specified in the First Schedule of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017 with usual D.A. and other allowances. 5.2. In the writ appeal it was sought to be clarified that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were not retrenched, but they could not be treated to be continuing in service merely because of pendency of O.J.C. No.8539 of 2009. 5.3. Being conscious about fact asserted by way of counter affidavit of the review petitioners herein this Court did not show inclination to indulge in the decision of the learned Single Bench. There is little scope for exercising inherent power of review in absence of the petitioners showing error apparent on the face of the record of the order impugned. 5.4. As the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, namely, Jayaram Behera and Goura Chandra Praharaj were not retrenched and continued during the pendency of O.J.C. No.8539 of 2000, the learned Single Judge while disposing of said writ petition vide Order dated 10th of January, 2019, directed the Authorities to absorb the said employees (opposite party Nos.1 and 2 herein) on regular basis. This Court proceeded to decide the writ appeal on the basis that the Odisha Lift Irrigation RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 6 of 28 Corporation Ltd. did not file any appeal against order dated 10th January, 2019 passed in OJC No.8539 of 2000. Under such circumstances, the writ appeal came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 15th January, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.19546 of 2016. 5.5. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. Once a mistake on the face of the record is established what order should follow to correct that mistake shall always depend on the facts and circumstances requiring to rectify the mistake. If the mistake is one which requires determination of some undecided issue because it has not been decided though raised, the procedure that would follow the discovery of such mistakes is to recall the order, and decide the case afresh or to decide that issue after affording an opportunity of hearing the parties concerned and pass a fresh order in the light of finding on such issue. Debatable issues on which two views are possible cannot be made subject matter of rectification. 5.6. “Mistake” is an ordinary word but it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate is discerned. The word “mistake” is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 7 of 28 and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word “apparent” is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of taking different view on re-appreciation of evidence on record. 5.7. Upon hearing counsel for both sides and having taken note of material fact borne on record, namely the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the review
Decision
petitioners in connection with the writ petition based on which the learned Single Judge had taken decision in Order dated 15.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.19546 of 2016, this Court does not perceive any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 5.8. In Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Katta Sujatha Reddy, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3214 the principles for exercising power of review has been summarized in the following manner: RVWPET No.21 of 2025 Page 8 of 28 “19. This Court has laid down the following principles on the exercise of review Jurisdiction1: a. 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; b. c. d. e. Error on the face of record must be an error which must strike one on a mere perusal and must not on a long drawn process; The power of review must not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits; The phrase “any other sufficient reason” means a reason that is analogous to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; and The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.” 5.9. In the case of Malleeswari Vrs. K. Suguna and another, 2025 INSC 1080, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India propounded the ambit of review 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 1