Review is warranted when an affected claimant was not impleaded and a material appointment recommendation was undisclosed.

The deceased employee, whose son was the review petitioner, died in harness on 11 June 2015.

A 2018 agreement between his two wives allocated the pension benefits equally and identified the son of the first wife as entitled to seek compassionate appointment.

Pankaj Kumar and Ravi Kumar Ranjan, the son of the second wife, filed separate writ petitions. The writ court directed consideration of Pankaj Kumar’s claim, subject to there being no impediment.

On 29 June 2024, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended Pankaj Kumar for a Class III (LDC) post.

Ravi Kumar Ranjan appealed in LPA No. 894 of 2024 without impleading Pankaj Kumar; on 4 February 2026, the Division Bench directed consideration of Ravi Kumar Ranjan’s claim. Pankaj Kumar sought review of that order.

1. Whether the omission to disclose the committee’s recommendation of Pankaj Kumar constituted a ground to review the order dated 4 February 2026.

2. Whether the LPA order should be reviewed where Ravi Kumar Ranjan had pursued the appeal without impleading Pankaj Kumar, whose claim was directly affected.

The Court stated that review may be entertained on three grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was unavailable when the order was passed; an error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason warranting review.

The State also relied on the Full Bench decision in Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Chandra Shekhar Paswan & Ors., reported at 2019 (2) PLJR 500 (FB), as the basis for the earlier LPA order; the review judgment does not set out a separate rule from that decision.

The Court found that the LPA appellant had not disclosed that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had considered and recommended Pankaj Kumar’s appointment on 29 June 2024.

It also noted that Pankaj Kumar had not been impleaded in the LPA, despite his competing claim and the committee’s recommendation.

In those circumstances, the Court held that Pankaj Kumar had established sufficient grounds for review under the principles stated in paragraph 12.

It restored the LPA to its original file for consideration in accordance with law and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.