A pension judgment cannot be relied upon in independent succession proceedings.

The applicants, the mother and brother of the deceased employee, sought leave to file a review petition against the judgment dated 11 March 2025 in WP(C) No. 409 of 2024.

They contended that they were not parties to, or served in, the writ proceedings and had no opportunity to present their case.

They asserted that the judgment was being relied upon against their interests in Succession Case No. 06 of 2020 pending before the District Judge, South West Garo Hills, Ampati.

Respondent No. 6 opposed the application, submitting that the writ petition concerned pension and had been disposed of after the Pension Payment Order was issued in her favour as the legally married wife of the deceased employee.

Whether the applicants, who were not parties to the writ petition, should be granted leave to institute a review petition against the judgment dated 11 March 2025.

Whether the judgment in the pension-related writ petition could affect or be relied upon in the pending succession proceedings.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a review application may be pursued only where a legally sustainable ground for review is disclosed; however, no specific statutory provision, precedent, or detailed review standard was cited in the order.

The Court distinguished the subject matter of the writ petition—release of pension benefits—from the independent adjudication of succession rights.

It further directed that the writ judgment should not be used in the succession proceedings, which were required to be decided independently of the pension dispute.

The Court noted that the applicants were the deceased employee’s mother and brother and that a succession case was already pending before the District Judge.

Nevertheless, it found no justification for granting leave to seek review because the writ proceedings concerned only pension and had culminated after the Pension Payment Order was released in favour of Respondent No. 6, described as the deceased employee’s legally married wife.

Since the pension determination did not adjudicate the parties’ succession rights, the Court considered that the applicants’ interests could be protected by ensuring that the writ judgment was not relied upon in the succession case.

The Court expressly directed that its judgment dated 11 March 2025 in WP(C) No. 409 of 2024 would not be used in the pending succession proceedings, which were to be decided independently of the pension-related issues.

The miscellaneous application was closed and disposed of.