A pay-revision undertaking is unenforceable unless shown to have been given voluntarily.

The Dean sought review of the order dated 28 July 2026 in W.P. No. 25206/2021, which had quashed recovery of ₹5,99,723 from the deceased writ petitioner, a retired Lab Technician, and directed repayment with 6% interest from the date of retirement.

The Dean argued that the Court had overlooked an undertaking given by the employee in March 2009, filed with the return in the writ proceedings, permitting recovery of excess pay and purporting to bind his heirs and legal representatives.

The respondent opposed review as an attempt to reopen the merits.

The Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit review on discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Under Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, review is not an appeal in disguise; an error must be apparent and material, not one requiring re-argument or reassessment.

Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta similarly establish that an error requiring detailed reasoning is not an error apparent on the record.

The Full Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey held that an undertaking imposed as a condition for receiving pay-related benefits is a forced undertaking and is unenforceable unless given voluntarily.

The Court considered High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh but held that it did not remove the need to assess the undertaking’s nature and circumstances.

Although the undertaking was already on the record, its existence alone did not establish that it was voluntary or that it altered the legal position governing recovery.

The Dean did not demonstrate that the undertaking was given voluntarily rather than as a compulsory condition of receiving revised pay benefits.

Applying the Full Bench rule in Jagdish Prasad Dubey, the Court concluded that the undertaking, without that showing, did not establish the legality of the recovery or disclose an apparent error in the original order.

The review therefore could not be used to rehear the matter or take a different view on the same material.

The order dated 28 July 2026 in W.P. No. 25206/2021 remained undisturbed; no costs were ordered.