The Dean vs Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Ahirwar Thr Lrs Ramesh Chandra Ahirwar

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
1 RP-2280-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 2280 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030289702026
THE DEAN
Versus
SMT. SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA AHIRWAR
THR LRS RAMESH CHANDRA AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Soumya Pawaiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ashi Gupta - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 9997 of 2026, application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 9997 of
2026, is allowed and the delay in filing the present petition is hereby
condoned.
4. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order
dated 28.07.2026 passed in W.P. No. 25206/2021.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the
recovery of Rs.5,99,723/- made from the writ petitioner on account of wrong
pay fixation was quashed and the amount was directed to be refunded with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till actual
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
2 RP-2280-2026
payment. It is submitted that the order suffers from an error apparent on the

face of the record, as the undertaking executed by the writ petitioner in
March, 2009 was already filed along with the return dated 28.03.2022 as part
of Annexure R/1, but the same was not considered by this Court. The writ
petitioner, Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Ahirwar, was working as a Lab
Technician in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior and retired on 28.02.2021.
During verification of his service record, it was found that his pay had been
wrongly fixed with effect from 01.04.2006, resulting in excess payment of
Rs.5,99,723/-, which was ordered to be recovered vide orders dated
05.10.2021 and 08.11.2021. The undertaking furnished by the writ petitioner
while opting for the revised pay structure under the Madhya Pradesh Vetan
Punarikshan Niyam, 2009, effective from 01.01.2006, provided that any
excess payment due to irregular pay fixation would be refunded and could be
recovered from his salary or retiral dues, and that the undertaking would also
bind his heirs and legal representatives. It is further submitted that the pay
was revised on the basis of the option and undertaking furnished in March,
2009, and, therefore, the finding that no undertaking was available on record
is contrary to the record.
6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further submitted that the
protection against recovery under the judgments in State of Punjab v. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. is not
available where the employee has furnished an undertaking, as held by the
Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana & ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
3 RP-2280-2026
reported in (2016)14 SCC 267 and followed by the Full Bench in Jagdish

Prasad Dubey (supra). The present case is also covered by the decision in
Ravindra Kumar Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No. 17831/2019 ,
wherein recovery was upheld because the employee had furnished an
undertaking. It is argued that non-consideration of the undertaking already
available on record constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, as
explained in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC
320 and in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372. The review petition is
confined to this error and does not seek to re-argue the matter on merits or
rely on any new material. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the order
dated 28.07.2026 be reviewed/recalled, the writ petition be restored for fresh
consideration after taking the undertaking into account, the recovery of
Rs.5,99,723/- be held valid and permissible in law, and the direction to
refund the amount with 6% interest be vacated.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the review
petition and submits that no error apparent on the face of the record has been
pointed out. The petitioner is seeking, in substance, rehearing of the writ
petition and re-appreciation of the material already considered, which is
beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The principal question for consideration is whether the undertaking
furnished by the writ petitioner in March 2009 provides a valid basis for
reviewing the order dated 28.07.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
4 RP-2280-2026
10. In this regard, the Full Bench of this Court in Jagdish Prasad

Dubey (supra), has specifically considered the question of recovery on the
basis of undertakings furnished by Government employees at the time of pay
refixation.
11. In paragraph 35(c) of the aforesaid judgment, the Full Bench held
as follows:
“Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking
given by the employee at the time of grant of financial
benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced
undertaking and is therefore not enforceable in the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (supra)
unless the undertaking is given voluntarily.”
12. The Full Bench further held that the enforceability of an
undertaking depends upon the circumstances in which it was furnished. An
undertaking made a compulsory condition for granting the benefit of pay
revision cannot automatically be treated as voluntary merely because the
employee signed it.
13. In the present case, the undertaking relied upon by the review
petitioner was furnished in March 2009 while the writ petitioner opted for the
revised pay structure. The mere existence of the undertaking on the record
does not, by itself, establish that it was given voluntarily. The review
petitioner has not demonstrated, merely by referring to Annexure R/1, that
the undertaking was a voluntary act of the employee and not a compulsory
condition for receiving the revised pay benefit.
14. The review petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
5 RP-2280-2026
Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh (supra). However, the said judgment does

not dispense with the requirement of examining the nature and circumstances
of the undertaking in the light of the binding Full Bench decision applicable
to the present case. The undertaking cannot be enforced merely because it
contains a clause permitting recovery of excess payment.
15. It is true that the undertaking was filed along with the return in the
original writ proceedings. However, the existence of a document on record
and its legal effect are two different matters. Even if the undertaking is taken
into consideration, the review petitioner must establish that it alters the legal
position governing the recovery. In view of the law laid down by the Full
Bench in Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), the undertaking, by itself, does not
establish the legality of the recovery of ₹ 5,99,723/-.
16. The scope of review is well defined. In the case of Kamlesh Verma
Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review
jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review
jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:

When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other
sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by
this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR
1954 SC 526 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at
least analogous to those specified in the rule”.

When the review will not be maintainable:

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
6 RP-2280-2026
“(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected
but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The meres possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived.


17. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which
is prima facie visible and does not require any detailed
examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review
cannot partake the category of the appeal.
18. Apart from the above, Section 114 of the CPC which is the
substantive provision and deals with the scope of review is required to be
quoted and analyzed :-

“Section 114- Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved:-


(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal
is allowed by this Code, but from which no
appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed by this Code; or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
7 RP-2280-2026
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court
of Small Causes, may apply for a review of
judgment to the court which passed the
decree or made the order, and the court may
make such order thereon as it thinks fit."



19. The grounds available for filing a review application against a
judgment as set out in Order XLVII of the CPC are also required to be
discussed:

“1. Application for review of judgment -

(1) 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.

(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
8 RP-2280-2026
respondent, he can present to the Appellate
Court the case on which he applies 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 the review of such judgment.]"



20. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review
application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important
matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within
the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient
reason.
21. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported
in 1980 Supp SCC 562, the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier
order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error
which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of
justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:

“12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we
resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any
feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard.
But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied
that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh
Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court
observed :

‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a
glaring omission or patent mistake or like
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
9 RP-2280-2026
grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin
ground but review of an earlier order which
has the normal feature of finality.”


22. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in
(1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self evident and the one
that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers
of review, the Apex Court held as under:

“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be
strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt.
of A.P. reported in 1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court
opined: ’


11. What, however, we are now concerned
with is whether the statement in the order of
September 1959 that the case did not involve
any substantial question of law is an ‘error
apparent on the face of the record’. The fact
that on the earlier occasion the Court held on
an identical state of facts that a substantial
question of law arose would not per se be
conclusive, for the earlier order itself might
be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement
was wrong, it would not follow that it was an
‘error apparent on the face of the record’, for
there is a distinction which is real, though it
might not always be capable of exposition,
between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterized as
vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no
means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected,
but lies only for patent error.

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
10 RP-2280-2026
Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while
quoting with approval a passage from Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported
in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again held that
review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

9. 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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of this 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 a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise". [emphasis added]


23. Testing the case of petitioner in the present review petition on the
touchstone of the mandate laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, this Court
finds that no case for interference is made out. No mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record is discernible so as to warrant exercise of review
jurisdiction.
24. The scope of review is extremely limited and cannot be invoked
for rehearing the matter or taking a different view on the same set of facts.
Since no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated, no
ground for interference is made out in the exercise of review jurisdiction.
25. In the present case, the review petitioner has not demonstrated any
error apparent on the face of the record that would justify recalling or
modifying the order dated 28.07.2026. The reliance placed on the
undertaking does not, in the absence of a demonstrated voluntary
undertaking, displace the legal principle laid down by the Full Bench of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31904
11 RP-2280-2026
Court.

26. Consequently, no ground for review is made out. The review
petition is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 28.07.2026 passed in W.P.
No. 25206/2021 shall remain undisturbed. No order as to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:24:37 PM