Mahipal And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others

-1-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

108
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026


Mahipal and others .....Applicant/Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Raman B.Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate
for the applicant/petitioners.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr. Harneet Singh Oberoi, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
*

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CM-15228-CWP of 2026
Instant application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for
condonation of delay of 8 days in refiling of the review application.
Heard.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the application as well as
arguments addressed, the same is allowed. Delay of 8 days in refiling of the
application for review is condoned.
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-2-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016



RA-CW No.517 of 2026
1. The present review application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the order dated
26.05.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No.4949 of 2016.
2. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the applicants-petitioners seeking
counting of their past service rendered with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and
Tubewells Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSMITC’) for the
purpose of pensionary benefits was dismissed by a common judgment dated
26.05.2026, lead case being CWP No.4949 of 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, inter alia, contends that the
judgment under review proceeds on an erroneous application of the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1105 of 2017, titled as
State of Haryana v. Nathu Singh . It is submitted that the facts of Nathu Singh’s
case (supra) are materially different, inasmuch as the employee therein was re-
employed on 01.09.2006 pursuant to the policy dated 21.06.2006, which
specifically required a retrenched employee to furnish an undertaking that he would
be treated as a fresh appointee and would not claim benefit of his past service. In
contradistinction, the applicants were appointed with respondent No.2-Board in the
year 2004, when the policies dated 06.02.2001, 18.05.2001 and 27.07.2001 were
in operation and no such condition of foregoing the benefit of past service was
stipulated therein.
Learned counsel further submits that identically situated employees of
4.
HSMITC had been granted the benefit of counting their past service in CWP
No.3792 of 2012, titled as Suresh Chand and others v. State of Haryana and
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-3-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


others , decided on 14.01.2016, which judgment was upheld in LPA No.1806 of
2016 and the matter attained finality before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is,
therefore, contended that denial of the same benefit to the applicants would result
in differential treatment of similarly situated employees. Learned counsel further
argues that Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2002 does not exclude
the applicants, as they had neither retired nor were re-employed after retirement.
Rather, after retrenchment, they participated in regular selection and were
appointed on the basis of their qualifications and interview, while being extended
the benefit of age relaxation/reservation available to retrenched employees.
Learned counsel also places reliance upon Clause 7 of the Office Memorandum
dated 07.01.2002 to contend that service rendered in a non-pensionable
organisation is liable to be counted upon appointment in a pensionable
organisation, subject to deposit/transfer of the employer's share of CPF along with
interest. Reliance has also been placed upon Gurmail Singh and others v. State of
Punjab and others, 1991(3) SCT 608 .
Per contra
5. , learned counsel for non-applicant/respondents opposes the
review application and submits that the applicants, under the guise of review, are
seeking a rehearing of the writ petition on merits. It is submitted that each of the
contentions now sought to be urged was considered while passing the judgment
dated 26.05.2026. The distinction between Prem Parkash Gupta’s case (supra)
and Nathu Singh’s case (supra) was specifically examined, including in the light
CWP No.2465 of 2017
of the Full Bench judgment dated 17.02.2026 rendered in ,
wherein it was held that there was no conflict between the said Division Bench
judgments as they operated in materially different factual and policy contexts.
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-4-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondents further submits
that unlike the employee in Suresh Chand’s case (supra) and Prem Parkash
Gupta’s case (supra) , the present applicants were not already working with
respondent No.2-Board on deputation or transfer basis prior to retrenchment from
HSMITC. Their relationship with HSMITC stood severed upon retrenchment in
July 2002 and they thereafter secured appointment with respondent No.2-Board in
the year 2004. The judgment under review has expressly recorded that no material
was placed on record to establish that their subsequent appointment with the Board
was other than a fresh appointment/re-employment. It is, thus, submitted that no
error apparent on the face of the record is made out.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The jurisdiction of review is extremely limited. A review proceeding
cannot be equated with an appeal in disguise, nor can a judgment be reviewed
merely because another view on the same material may also be possible. Hon’ble
the Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has categorically held that an order
can be reviewed only on the grounds prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
CPC, 1908, i.e., (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; (b) error
apparent on the face of the record; and (c) any other sufficient reason. The
expression “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court to mean a reason analogous to those specifically enumerated in the
Rule. Where review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or
evidence, such material must be relevant and of such a nature that, had it been
placed before the Court, it might have led to a different conclusion. Further, the
party seeking review must demonstrate that the said material was not within its
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-5-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


knowledge and could not, despite the exercise of due diligence, have been produced
before the Court at the time of the original hearing.
9. Further still, in a review petition, it is not open to this Court to
re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion, even if such a
conclusion is otherwise possible. Appreciation of the evidence on record falls
within the domain of the learned Appellate Court and once this Court has recorded
a finding of fact and arrived at a conclusion, the same cannot be assailed in review
unless it is demonstrated that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or
a ground analogous thereto. Permitting the review petitioner to re-agitate questions
relating to appreciation of evidence would amount to converting the review petition
into an appeal in disguise. A decision, however erroneous, therefore, cannot by
itself furnish a ground for review and may be corrected only in appeal.
Furthermore, the error sought to be reviewed must be self-evident and apparent on
the face of the record, sufficiently grave to be discernible on a mere cursory
examination, or arise from an omission so glaring as to warrant interference in
review jurisdiction. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh
Verma v. Mayawati, 2013 SCC Online SC 714 , speaking through Justice P.
Sathasivam, has summarized the principles regarding the exercise of review
jurisdiction in the following manner:
“16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute :
(A) 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.
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-6-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 Privy Council 112 and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &
Ors., (1955)1 SCR 520 , to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. &
Ors., 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 436 : JT 2013(8) SC 275 .
(B) When the review will not be maintainable :-
(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 the 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 re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere 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) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
(emphasis added)

10. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered
by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Telangana v.
Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died), 2024 INSC 310 , wherein the Court, speaking through
Justice M.M. Sundresh, has observed as follows:
“19. The words "due diligence", though one of fact, places onus heavily
on the one who seeks a review. It has to be seen from the point of view of
a reasonable and prudent man. Though an element of flexibility is given
to any evidence or matter on its discovery, it has to be one which was not
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-7-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


available to the court earlier. It could not have been produced despite due
diligence, meaning thereby that it should have been available and,
therefore, in existence at least at the time of passing the decree.
20. Mistake or error apparent on the face of record would debar the court
from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging in a re-hearing.
A decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review, but can
only be corrected in appeal. Such a mistake or error should be self-evident
on the face of record. The error should be grave enough to be identified on
a mere cursory look, and an omission so glaring that it requires
interference in the form of a review. Being a creature of the statute, there
is absolutely no room for a fresh hearing. The court has got no role to
involve itself in the process of adjudication for a second time. Instead, it
has to merely examine the existence of an apparent mistake or error. Even
when two views are possible, the court shall not indulge itself by going into
the merits.
21. The material produced, at this stage, should be of such pristine quality
which, if taken into consideration, would have the logical effect of
reversing the judgment. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 indicates
that power of review can be exercised by courts, in three different
situations, but these occasions ought to be read in an analogous manner.
In other words, they should be read in a manner to mean that a restrictive
power has been conferred upon the court . As stated, the words "for any
other sufficient reason" ought to be read in conjunction with the earlier two
categories reiterating the scope. Being a judicial discretion, it has to be
exercised with circumspection and on rare occasions. It is a power to be
exercised by way of an exception, subject to the rigours of the provision.
22. A subsequent event per se cannot form the basis of a review. Sub-clause
(c) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908, clearly specifies that the
important matter or evidence produced must have been available at the time
when the decree was passed. This is a matter of rule. On a very rare
occasion, an exception can be carved out. Such an exception can only be
exercised when the said matter or evidence is of unimpeachable quality. It is
not only a new matter or evidence that should be taken into consideration,
but it should also be an important one.
23. While exercising the said power, the court has to first check the
evidentiary value of such discovery, including the circumstances under
which it emanated, particularly when it inherently lacks jurisdiction or the
evidence cannot be made admissible in law and therefore, is not relevant. In
such a circumstance, there is no question of proceeding further in deciding
the review application.”
(emphasis added)
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-8-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016



11. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice
Harsimran Singh Sethi, in its order dated 17.04.2026 passed in RA-CW-167-2026,
titled ‘Union of India and others v. Daljit Singh and another’ , has made the
following pertinent observations in this regard:
“2. The assertion which is being made in the present review application is
that the interpretation given by the Court is incorrect.
3. As per the settled principle of law, the jurisdiction to review an order is
very limited and same is only permissible, in case, any incorrect fact or
discrepancies in facts have been recorded to arrive at a conclusion.
Further, the remedy to file review is permissible, in case, any fact which
was not in the knowledge of the review applicant despite due diligence, has
come to the notice of such review applicant so as to press the same into
review so as to recall the order .
4. In the present case, the review of the order dated 01.12.2025 is being
sought on the ground that the conclusion arrived at by the Court keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the present case which were brought
on record, is not correct. The said ground is not permissible while
adjudicating upon a review application, as the contention that an order
passed by Court is incorrect can only be agitated in an appeal. Hence, no
review can be filed under the guise of an appeal in order to re-argue the
case so as to convince the Bench hearing the review application to arrive
at a different conclusion .
5. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the
review-applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the review Court
cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be placed upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1167-
1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and others
decided on 24.02.2023 . Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as
under:-
xx xx xx
6. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar
Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 has been held that
it is only on discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise
of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the
review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made,
the remedy of review may be exercised however, a review petition cannot be
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-9-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


filed on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits as the same will
be province of a Court of appeal. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as
under:-
xx xx xx
7. While deciding the same issue of review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 held that 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 exercise of power of review. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that
review petition cannot be filed for an erroneous decision to be reheard and
corrected and the said review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise.
Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under…”
(emphasis added)

12. Adverting to the case in hand, the services of the applicants/petitioners
with HSMITC were retrenched in July 2002 and they were subsequently
appointed/re-employed with respondent No.2-Board in the year 2004. They were
not working with respondent No.2-Board either on deputation or transfer basis
before their retrenchment. It has been noticed that no material had been placed on
record to establish that their subsequent appointment with respondent No.2-Board
was not in the nature of a fresh appointment/re-employment. On that basis, the case
of the applicants was held to be governed by and
Nathu Singh’s case (supra)
distinguishable from Prem Parkash Gupta’s case (supra) . The Clause 7 of the
Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2002 cannot be read in isolation from the scope
and applicability of the Office Memorandum itself. Once the judgment under
review has, upon consideration of the relevant clauses and the factual position,
returned a finding that the subsequent appointment of the applicants did not have
the element of continuity which existed in Prem Parkash Gupta’s case (supra) , an
attempt to seek a different interpretation of the very same Office Memorandum
would amount to re-agitation of the matter on merits. Similarly, the plea that the
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-10-
RA-CW No.501 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4949 of 2016


applicants are identically situated to the petitioners in Suresh Chand’s case (supra)
was specifically considered and rejected in the judgment under review. The reliance
placed upon Gurmail Singh’s case (supra) and the other authorities cited by
learned counsel for the applicants also does not disclose any error apparent on the
face of the record. The present application, in substance, seeks reconsideration of
the conclusions already arrived at after hearing the parties and considering the
relevant material. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for such a purpose.
13. Consequently, no ground for review of the judgment dated 26.05.2026
passed by this Court in CWP No.4949 of 2016 is made out. Accordingly, the
present review application is dismissed.
14. Pending misc. application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.

( HARPREET SINGH BRAR )
September 08 , 2026. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh