P&H HC Rejects State Supplies Corporation’s Review, Imposes ₹50,000 Costs For Extending Judgment Benefit To One Worker But Denying It To Another

In brief

The question

Whether the review application established a ground recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, or instead sought impermissible re-argument and reconsideration of the merits.

The court held

The Court dismissed the review application, finding no ground for review of the judgment dated 10 March 2026.

It also directed

It imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondents, payable to the petitioner within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy.

If the judgment under review is not complied with, the petitioner may seek appropriate contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution.

01Facts

The respondents sought review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and Section 151 CPC of the judgment dated 10 March 2026 in CWP No. 7151 of 2026.

p. 1

The application was filed 188 days late; the delay was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

p. 1

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the respondents had appealed the judgment in this case and a related judgment in Jarmal Singh v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another, but had implemented the Jarmal Singh judgment while withholding the benefit from the petitioner.

p. 2 · ¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the review application established a ground recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, or instead sought impermissible re-argument and reconsideration of the merits.

pp. 2–8 · ¶ 4–8

ii.Whether the respondents’ selective implementation of judgments concerning similarly situated employees was arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether costs should be imposed.

p. 8 · ¶ 9 · p. 9 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits review only on discovery of relevant new material that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

pp. 3–7 · ¶ 4–7

Review is not an appeal in disguise, does not permit reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration of an allegedly erroneous decision, and is unavailable where the alleged error requires reasoning or where two views are possible. The Court relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 714; State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died), 2024 INSC 310; and the authorities discussed in the cited Division Bench order in Union of India v. Daljit Singh.

pp. 3–7 · ¶ 4–7

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require equality and fairness in the treatment of similarly situated employees; State instrumentalities cannot selectively extend judicially recognised benefits without a legally sustainable distinction.

p. 8 · ¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court found that the review grounds were, in substance, grounds of appeal and sought a different view on matters already adjudicated; they disclosed no apparent error or other sufficient ground for review.

p. 8 · ¶ 8

Separately, the respondents had extended the benefit of the Pawan Kumar judgment to a similarly situated employee in Jarmal Singh while denying it to the petitioner, despite the cases being governed by the same legal principle. The Court held that this selective treatment lacked an intelligible or legally sustainable basis and was inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16.

p. 8 · ¶ 9