Review cannot re-agitate conclusively decided issues or operate as an appeal in disguise.

The Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur filed review petitions under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of common orders dated 14 August 2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 541 of 2018 and connected appeals.

The connected petitions concerned employees/daily wagers, including Vishnu Kant Tripathy, Narendra Kumar Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Jaat, Sanat Kumar Shukla, Ramkesh Singh, Rustam Khan, Rajulal Patel, Ashok Kumar Dubey, Shashikant Hazari through legal representatives, and Hassan Mehndi.

The parties jointly submitted that the questions involved were identical to those decided in Review Petition No. 2473 of 2025, Municipal Corporation Jabalpur v. Rakesh Shukla & Others, decided on 13 July 2026.

The underlying dispute related to regularisation and alleged de-regularisation of employees who had served the Municipal Corporation for approximately 30–40 years while performing work of regular employees without corresponding service benefits.

Whether a review petition before the High Court is maintainable after dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court, where no leave to appeal was granted?

Whether the Municipal Corporation had established any ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, such as discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous sufficient reason, warranting review of the orders dated 14 August 2024?

Whether the issues concerning regularisation and de-regularisation, already considered by the Single Bench and Division Bench, could be re-agitated through review proceedings?

The Court applied Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, under which review is permissible only upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to the specified grounds.

Relying on Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376, Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, and Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. ICICI Bank, (2024) 9 SCC 573, the Court held that dismissal of an SLP, whether speaking or non-speaking, without grant of leave does not attract the doctrine of merger and does not bar a review petition before the High Court.

The Court further applied the settled principle that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision on merits, as stated in Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, (2021) 13 SCC 1, Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715.

The Court also referred to Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, for the principle that a model employer cannot rely mechanically on contractual labels or Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi to justify prolonged ad hocism or deny fair consideration for regularisation.

The Court accepted that the review petitions were maintainable because the dismissal of the SLPs did not result in merger where the Supreme Court had not granted leave to appeal.

However, maintainability did not establish entitlement to review.

The grounds advanced by the Municipal Corporation had already been raised, considered, and rejected in the earlier writ and appellate proceedings; therefore, they did not disclose any new evidence, patent error, or analogous sufficient reason under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

The Court treated the repeated challenge to regularisation and de-regularisation as an attempt to obtain a rehearing on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

It also adopted the earlier finding that the employees had rendered prolonged service—approximately 30–40 years—while performing regular work, and that the Corporation could not use contractual or daily-wage nomenclature to defeat constitutionally fair consideration of their claims.

Since the present petitions involved identical questions of fact and law, the Court applied the earlier common order mutatis mutandis.

Nevertheless, the petitions failed on merits because they sought to re-agitate matters already conclusively considered and disclosed no ground recognised under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Accordingly, Review Petition Nos. 780, 1347–1354 and 1371 of 2026 were dismissed, with a direction that a copy of the common order be placed in the connected review petitions.