Bijender Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 1 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106
CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
Date of decision :-30.10.2026
Bijender Singh and others
…..Applicants/petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…..Non-applicants/respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate
for the applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
CM-19827-CWP-2026
The present application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation seeking condonation of delay of 63 days in filing the
accompanying Review Application.
2. Heard.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is
duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/petitioner No.1, the
same is allowed; and delay of 63 days in filing the accompanying
Review Application is condoned.
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 2 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
RA-CW-673-2026
This is a Review Application under Section 114 read
with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying
for review/recalling the impugned judgment and orders dated
13.07.2026 (Annexure A-1) and for allowing the petition, as prayed
for, in the interest of justice and equity; AND further in alternatively,
Prayer in view the interim stays operating in identical cases i.e Amit
Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.
19129 of 2026 (passed by the same authority on same date) and
Naveen Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others in CWP
No. 24051 of 2026 , considering the extreme financial hardship of the
applicants being sole breadwinners, acknowledging that other vital
grounds were not taken earlier, and granting the applicants permission
to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh,
comprehensive writ petition on same cause of action on better and
advanced facts and grounds.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the Review
applicants/petitioners that the main CWP-20830-2026 was filed by the
petitioners challenging the legality and validity of the speaking order
dated 27.05.2026; whereby their contractual service as Group-D
employees, deployed through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam
Limited (in short ‘HKRNL’) had been dispensed with. The said writ
petition came to be dismissed, vide order dated 13.07.2026 (under
review).
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 3 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
3. Ld. Counsel candidly admits that in the main Writ
Petition (CWP No. 20830 of 2026), the relief was primarily claimed
under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act,
2024, and upon examination, it is an admitted position that the
petitioners did not complete the mandatory five years of continuous
service as on the cut-off date prescribed under the said Act. Therefore,
the specific statutory protection under the 2024 Act could not be
extended to them.
4. Ld. Counsel further submits that at the time of filing and
arguing the original Writ Petition, the other vital grounds and
comprehensive factual aspects - such as by colourable exercise of
powers after this Hon'ble Court stayed the operation of the orders, as
having been passed in the same lines, and arbitrary violation of 'First
In, First Out' (FIFO) principles, availability of vacancies in adjoining
sub-divisions and State level on the same Department, malafide or
discriminatory application of the speaking orders, and violation of
service jurisprudence - were not taken or urged by the petitioners due
to inadvertence and lack of proper knowledge of facts at that stage.
5. It is submitted that similar impugned orders of
relieving/dispensing with service of co-employees, have been stayed
by this Court in other cases. Moreover, the review-applicants belong
to extremely poor and marginalized families. They are the Sole
breadwinners of their respective households, and their sudden
termination from long standing contractual employment has pushed
their family to the verge of starvation and irreparable financial loss,
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 4 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
depriving them of their right to livelihood under the Constitution of
India.
6. It is further submitted that the original Petition was
limited to the Employee Security Act 2024 and missed other key legal
grounds. Now the petitioners humbly prayer to seek a review of the
order dated 13.07.2026; and alternatively, prayer to permission to
withdraw the original Petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition
containing complete details and better facts.
7. It is accordingly prayed that the present Review
Application be allowed; and the impugned judgment and orders dated
13.07.2026 (Annexure A-1) may kindly be reviewed/recalled and be
allowed, as prayed for, in the interest of justice.
8. Per contra, ld. State Counsel appearing on advance
notice has opposed submissions of the Review Applicants and has
submitted that by way of the present Review Application, Review
Applicants are seeking rehearing of the main matter on merits, which
is not permitted under law. As such, present Review Application is
not maintainable. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present
Review Application.
9. Heard.
10. No other argument is raised on behalf of the ld. Counsel
for the parties. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf
of the Review Applicants/Petitioners.
11. The Review Applicants are seeking review of the order
dated 13.7.2026 on the Ground that they had failed to take “ vital
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 5 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
grounds and comprehensive factual aspects…. were not taken or
urged by the petitioners due to inadvertence and lack of proper
knowledge of facts…….” at the stage of arguments of the main Writ
Petition on 13.07.2026. It has accordingly been prayed that the order
dated 13.7.2026 be recalled and the petitioners be permitted to
withdraw the main writ petition with liberty to file afresh with better
particulars.
12. Firstly, the aforesaid reason that review applicants had
inadvertently failed to take vital grounds and had missed
comprehensive factual aspects due to lack of proper knowledge,
constitutes no ground for review/recall of the order dated 13.7.2026.
Review/recall of an order is permissible only if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, learned
counsel for the review applicants has failed to point out any such error
apparent in the judgment dated 13.7.2026.
13. In Lekh Ram v. Ami Lal, (Punjab And Haryana):
Law Finder Doc Id # 2721099 the review application was dismissed
by making reference to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with
the following observations: –
“10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Parsion
Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported as (1997)
8 SCC 715 , had observed that while exercising the power of
review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for
the Court to rehear the matter and that the review petition must
be resorted to for a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to
be "an appeal in disguise". Relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 6 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
"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 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."
10. Considered in the light of this settled position
we find that Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the
jurisdiction vested in the court under Order 47,
Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that
"accordingly", the order in question is reviewed and it is
held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held
that the decree in question was of composite nature
wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were
provided" and as such the case was covered by Article
the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear
distinction between an erroneous decision and an error
apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be
corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be
corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While
passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order
in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous
decision, though without saying so in so many words.
Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did
record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record which not of such a nature, "Which
had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons"
and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J.
However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified
phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order
passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to
review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case
was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors
could have approached the higher forum through
appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J.
and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a
"review of the order of petition. In this view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that  the impugned order
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 7 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly
accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order
dated 6.3.1997.”
14. Further, even assuming that the present Review
Application is maintainable, even on merits, no ground is made out to
review the order dated 13.07.2026. The submissions raised in the
present application are nothing but a reiteration of the very same
arguments which were duly considered and rejected by this Court
while deciding the Civil Writ Petition on merits. The Review
Applicants, under the garb of the present Review Application, seeks
re-appreciation of the entire matter which is wholly impermissible in
the exercise of review jurisdiction. A perusal of the judgment dated
13.07.2026 shows that the entire aspects of the matter have been
examined in minute detail before passing the judgment under review.
15. In any event, all the abovesaid arguments now sought to
be raised by the Review Applicants by way of the present Review
Application were available to them at the time of arguing the main
Civil Writ Petition. As already noted above, it is established position
in law that a Review Application is not meant to permit the Review
Applicants to re-argue the entire case and raise the points that could
have been raised during the final hearing. The order dated 13.07.2026
was passed after hearing ld. Counsel for the petitioners at great length.
Each of the arguments raised by ld. Counsel for the petitioners have
been considered and dealt with in detail. An order passed by this
Court can be reviewed only if a manifest error on the face of the
record, meaning thereby a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment,
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 8 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
is pointed out. No such error has been pointed out by learned counsel
for the review applicant either in the Review Application, or at the
time of arguments. The Review Application is not meant to re-agitate
arguments or pleadings that were omitted during the hearing of the
main matter.
16. Reliance is placed on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another”
SLP(C)No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles
for review jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as
follows: -
“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be
assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the
rules having the force of a statute. The review
jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred
bylaw on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and
Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review
of the courts. The power of review is different from
appellate power and is subject to the following
limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:
15.1 The 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 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers,
which may enable an appellate court to correct all
manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule1
of 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.
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19827-CWP-2026 in/and 9 of 9
RA-CW-673-2026 in
CWP-20830-2026
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the
correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such
powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the
statute governing the exercise of power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own
order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It
constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a
judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be
altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors.”
17. Even otherwise, petitioners cannot claim parity with
other persons, who are stated to be similarly situated as interim
protection in the other cases was granted in the facts and
circumstances of the said cases. Further, prayer of the review
applicants that they be permitted to withdraw the present Writ Petition
to file afresh with better particulars, is not permissible as per law.
18. As such, no ground is made out for reviewing/recalling
the order dated 13.07.2026.
19. Present Application accordingly stands dismissed.
30.10.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document