Bombay HC Reverses Earlier Ruling, Restores Ex-Serviceman’s ₹41,070 Pay Fixation After Finding Double Pay-Revision Benefit, But Bars Recovery

Respondent No. 2, an ex-serviceman, joined the Petitioners’ establishment as a Technician-III on 25 November 2016.

After his military pay was revised under the Seventh Pay Commission, his last-drawn pay was recorded as approximately Rs. 37,300; the Petitioners protected that pay on his re-employment.

Under a later administrative circular effective 1 April 2018, his pay was fixed at Rs. 72,875.

The Industrial Court set aside the Petitioners’ subsequent fixation of Rs. 41,070 and directed fixation at Rs. 72,875.

The High Court initially dismissed the Petitioners’ writ petition, but they sought review, relying on additional documents concerning the pay-revision formula and the merger of dearness allowance (DA).

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits review where a party demonstrates discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was not known or could not be produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason.

A review is not an appeal or an opportunity to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision; an apparent error must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning.

For review based on new evidence, the court must be satisfied that the evidence could change the judgment, was not within the applicant’s knowledge, and could not have been produced despite due diligence.

The court also relied on Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (2005) 13 SCC 289, for the proposition that review may be exercised to correct an error on the face of the record where the interests of justice require it.

The Court considered the additional documents, including the materials concerning the State Government’s revised-pay framework, the Petitioners’ DA practice, and the settlement adopting a 125% DA merger and a 32.5% increase in pre-revised basic pay.

It found these materials linked the Petitioners’ 2019 pay structure to the Seventh Pay Commission formula and supported the conclusion that Respondent No. 2 had already benefited from a military pay revision before receiving a further revision in the Petitioners’ establishment.

The Court held that, had this material been before it earlier, it would have reached a different result; it treated the resulting double pay benefit as an apparent error requiring correction in the interests of justice.

It therefore found the Industrial Court’s direction to fix pay at Rs. 72,875 unsustainable and considered the Petitioners’ fixation at Rs. 41,070 to provide pay protection without granting the revision benefit twice.

It confirmed the Petitioners’ pay-fixation order dated 24 October 2024, fixing Respondent No. 2’s pay at Rs. 41,070, but directed that no recovery be made from him as a result of that fixation.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.