A subsequent coordinate-bench decision does not, by itself, justify review.

The petitioner sought review of the High Court’s order dated 20 July 2026 dismissing his writ appeal concerning pension benefits under the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS).

He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in R.C. Gupta applied to his case, rather than Sunil Kumar B., and relied on a subsequent High Court order dated 21 July 2026 dismissing a batch of appeals in Central Board of Trustees, EPF v. Prakash Bhalachandra Keskar.

He also contended that the differing decisions warranted review or reference to a larger Bench.

The respondents opposed review, submitting that the challenged order disclosed no error apparent on the record and that a subsequent decision was not, by itself, a ground for review.

1. Whether a subsequent decision of the High Court on the same subject can, by itself, constitute a ground to review the petitioner’s earlier order.

2. Whether the petitioner demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient ground for review, including by alleging inconsistent application of R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B.

Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern review; review is confined to grounds including discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

The Explanation to Order 47, as reproduced by the Court, provides that a subsequent decision of a superior court reversing or modifying a decision on a question of law in another case is not a ground for review.

Under Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, an error that requires a process of reasoning is not an error apparent, and review cannot be used to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision.

Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reiterates that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used merely to substitute one view for another.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil regarding subsequent events, Shanti Conductors on the limited scope of review, and Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy on a subsequent decision or change in law not, by itself, constituting a ground for review.

The Court treated the petitioner’s principal ground as reliance on the later order dated 21 July 2026 and held that a subsequent decision could not, by itself, justify review.

It further found that the petitioner had not shown that the earlier order in Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026, on which the challenged order was based, had itself been reviewed or was under review.

Having considered the petitioner’s arguments concerning R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B., the Court concluded that they did not establish a perceptible illegality, an error apparent on the record, or another sufficient ground for review.

The Court dismissed the review petition.