Reconsideration of contractual and regulatory arguments does not establish an error apparent warranting review.

During his service with the Bank, the Respondent obtained vehicle, education and housing loans.

The education and housing loans were secured by a lien over his Provident Fund (PF).

Following disciplinary proceedings, the Bank imposed a censure and directed repayment of the housing loan, with any balance at retirement to be adjusted against terminal benefits.

After the Respondent retired, the Bank appropriated amounts credited to his accounts to close the education, housing and vehicle loans.

The Respondent challenged the appropriation.

The learned Single Judge allowed his challenge, and the Division Bench dismissed the Bank’s appeal, holding that the loan terms did not permit premature closure merely because of superannuation.

The Bank then sought review, alleging that the Court had overlooked relevant loan-agreement provisions and Regulation 49 of the SBT Pension Regulations.

1. Whether the Court’s alleged failure to consider the loan-agreement provisions authorising repayment or adjustment upon retirement constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

2. Whether the Court’s alleged failure to consider Regulation 49 of the SBT Pension Regulations, and the Bank’s reliance on ONGC and Mahanadi, disclosed an error apparent warranting review

Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record: an error evident on a mere inspection of the order, not one requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning where two views may be possible.

Regulation 49 of the SBT Pension Regulations permits recovery of specified Bank dues from the commuted value of pension or family pension.

The Court distinguished Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier, (2005) 5 SCC 245, because the ONGC regulations expressly authorised recovery from gratuity before payment, and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 470, which concerned withholding and forfeiture of gratuity in pending disciplinary proceedings.

The Court found that the prior order had considered whether the loan terms authorised premature closure and appropriation of terminal benefits; the Bank’s contention that the agreements were overlooked therefore rested on an incomplete reading of that order.

The prior order had also addressed recovery of the education-loan amount after the PF was credited to the Respondent’s overdraft account, including the absence of an agreement, rule or regulation authorising that adjustment.

Regulation 49 did not establish an error apparent because the Bank’s argument sought reconsideration on the merits, while the prior order had held that the Bank lacked authority to appropriate amounts already credited to the Respondent’s accounts.

The cited precedents did not alter that conclusion because they concerned materially different regulatory authority and circumstances.

It clarified that the Bank’s right to pursue lawful recovery of the outstanding loan dues remained unaffected; the prior order dealt only with the manner in which the Respondent’s terminal benefits had been appropriated.

The pending application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.