BHAGWATI VERMA vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,

1

CGHC010333002026 2026:CGHC:44836-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.16
18:18:06 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 309 of 2026
Bhagwati Verma S/o Chowa Ram Verma Aged About 68 Years R/o Village
Kandul, Sunder Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Employees Provident Fund Organization, Through Commissioner,
Regional Office, Block-D, Scheme-32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex,
Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Stae Co-Operative Dairy Federation Through Its Managing
Director, Urla, Post B M Y Charouda, District Durg Chhattisgarh
3 - Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (M P C G) Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Zonal Office - Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 59
Arera Hill, Bhopal, District Bhopal M.P.
.. Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate along with Mr.
Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate.
For Respondent No.
: Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate.
1 and 3.
Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
16/10/2026
1. This review petition has been filed by the review petitioner for
reviewing of the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by this Court in

2
Writ Appeal No.578 of 2026 (Bhagwati Verma Vs. Employees
Provident Fund Organization & Others) , whereby the writ
appeal filed by the review petitioner has been dismissed in the
light of order dated 23.06.2026 passed by this Court in Writ
Appeal No.516 of 2026 (R.K. Chalisgaonkar Vs. Employees
Provident Fund Organization & Others) .
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that after
passing of the order dated 20.07.2026 in Writ Appeal No.578 of
2026, another order has been passed by this Court on
21.07.2026, whereby Writ Appeal No.505 of 2026 (Central Board
of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Vs. Prakash
Bhalachandra Keskar & Others) , along with batch of writ
appeals preferred by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees
Provident Fund, has been dismissed. He would submit that the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees
Provident Fund Organization & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. &
Others reported in 2023(12) SCC 701, has wrongly been applied
in the case of the review petitioner, whereas the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta & Others
Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, reported in
(2018) 14 SCC 809 , is squarely applicable to the facts of the
present case. The said judgment has also been considered by
this Court while deciding Writ Appeal No.505 of 2026 and batch of
writ appeals.

3
3. Learned counsel would further submit that the review petitioner
retired in March, 2014 and opted for the Employees’ Pension
Scheme (EPS) pursuant to the subsequent Circular dated
23.03.2017 issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of
India. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in R.C. Gupta (supra) is squarely applicable to his case.
He would also pray that, in view of the conflicting decisions, the
matter may be referred to a larger Bench so as to settle the issue
and avoid conflicting decisions, particularly in matters affecting the
pensionary rights and benefits of retired employees.
4. It is further submitted that the case of the present review petitioner
was decided on the basis of the order dated 23.06.2026 passed in
Writ Appeal No.516 of 2026, which was itself decided by applying
the ratio laid down in R.C. Gupta (supra) . Thus, according to
learned counsel, conflicting views have been taken by this Court
in two different writ appeals on the same issue. In such
circumstances, the order dated 20.07.2026 passed in Writ Appeal
No.578 of 2026 deserves to be reviewed and recalled, and the
matter may be heard on its merits, as the issue involved present
writ appeals having wide impact on the pensionary benefits of
retired employees.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.1 and 3 would oppose the submissions made by learned

4
counsel for the petitioner and submit that this Court has rightly
applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil
Kumar B. (supra) , which has subsequently been affirmed in
Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association, 2025 SCC Online
SC 750 . He would further submit that a subsequent decision on
the same subject matter cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for
review, particularly when there is no error apparent on the face of
the record in the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by this Court in
Writ Appeal No.578 of 2026 and other connected writ appeals.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the review
petition and the writ appeals.
7. In the present case, the petitioner sought review of order dated
20.07.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.578 of 2026
on the ground of subsequent order passed by this Court on
21.07.2026 in Writ Appeal No.505 of 2026, thereby he sought
review on the subsequent event.
8. The explanation of Order 47 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) provided that a subsequent event cannot be a ground to
review the order. It is necessary to note here the explanation of
Order 47 Rule 2 of CPC is as under :
“ (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

5
is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
when, being 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.”
9. In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil &
Ors. , 2000 (1) Supreme 384 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that subsequent event cannot be a ground for review in view
of the said provision of explanation of Order 47 Rule 2 of CPC.
10. Further, the review petitioner has emphasized on the issue that in
his case, the judgment of R.C. Gupta (supra) would be applicable
and not the case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) that has been
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereas from perusal of
the material annexed with the review petition as well as the writ
petition, it clearly transpires that this Court has after considering
both these judgments and entire facts and circumstances of the
case, decided the writ appeal filed by the petitioner in view of
order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.516 of 2026. Further,
it could not be demonstrated by the review petitioners that the
order dated 23.06.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No.516 of 2026
has been reviewed or under review before this Court.

6
11. The relevant provisions of law for review of an order and the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard
are as under:-
Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and
Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and
procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced
hereunder:-
Section 114 of CPC– 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 Court, or
(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.
"Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:
" 1. Application for review of judgment- 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

7
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. (emphasis supplied)
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 respondent, he can present to
the Appellate Court the case on which he applied 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."
12. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and
others, 1997 (8) SCC 715 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-9
held as under :-
“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

8
must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
13. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra,
2019 (20) SCC 753 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held
that:-
" 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11
and 33 as under. (SCC pp. 669 & 675)
"10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review
court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A
rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It
constitutes an exception to the general rule that once
a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be
altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent
jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v.
Union of India this Court held: (SCC P. 251, para 56)
56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake but
not to substitute a view. Such powers can be
exercised within the limits of the statute dealing
with the exercise of power. The review cannot
be treated like an appeal in disguise."
33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review
jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:
"The law on the subject exercise of power of review,
as propounded by the Apex Court and various other
High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:
(i) 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.

9
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some
mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is
found. But error on the face of record must be such an
error which must strike one on mere looking at the
record and would not require any long-drawn process
of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any
sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a
misconception of fact of law by a court or even an
advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by
way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem
gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law
enumerated by it in the facts of this case, have
wrongly been applied."
14.
In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State
Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed the petition and held that "The scope of review is
limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have
already been addressed and decided."
15. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021)
3 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " even the change
in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or
larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

10
16. From the aforesaid consideration, we are of the considered
opinion that the review petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
perceptible illegality, error apparent on the face of the record, or
any other sufficient ground warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its review jurisdiction. Consequently, no case for
review of the order impugned is made out.
17. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, this
review petition is hereby dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge
Alok