Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue merits or seek a different interpretation of existing material.

The applicants had been employed with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Limited (HSMITC) until their services were retrenched in July 2002.

They were subsequently appointed/re-employed with respondent No. 2-Board in 2004.

In the original writ petition, they sought counting of their past HSMITC service for pensionary benefits.

Their claim was dismissed by judgment dated 26 May 2026, principally on the basis that their subsequent appointment was a fresh appointment/re-employment lacking continuity of service, and that their case was governed by State of Haryana v. Nathu Singh rather than Prem Parkash Gupta.

The applicants filed the present review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, contending that the judgment had incorrectly applied Nathu Singh, failed to follow Suresh Chand, and misinterpreted the Office Memorandum dated 7 January 2002.

An accompanying application seeking condonation of eight days’ delay in refiling the review application was also filed and allowed.

Whether the applicants established an error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally recognised ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC warranting review of the judgment dated 26 May 2026?

Whether the Court had incorrectly applied State of Haryana v. Nathu Singh and failed to extend the benefit of past service in light of the Office Memorandum dated 7 January 2002 and the decisions in Suresh Chand and Prem Parkash Gupta?

Whether the applicants’ subsequent appointments with respondent No. 2-Board constituted appointments with continuity of service rather than fresh appointments or re-employment?

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is permissible only on 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 those grounds.

Review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal or to reappreciate evidence, reconsider the merits, or substitute another possible view for the view already taken.

The Court relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 714, State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died), 2024 INSC 310, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, and Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, for the principle that an error must be self-evident and apparent on a mere examination of the record.

The Court also considered the Office Memorandum dated 7 January 2002, the decisions in State of Haryana v. Nathu Singh, Prem Parkash Gupta, and Suresh Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, and held that Clause 7 of the Office Memorandum could not be read independently of the Memorandum’s overall scope and applicability.

The Court held that the review application merely sought reconsideration of conclusions already reached in the original judgment.

The applicants’ services with HSMITC had ended in July 2002, and they were appointed with the Board only in 2004; they were not serving with the Board on deputation or transfer before retrenchment.

Further, no material had been produced to show that their later appointments were anything other than fresh appointments or re-employment.

Accordingly, the Court found that the factual continuity present in Prem Parkash Gupta was absent, and that the applicants’ case was distinguishable from Suresh Chand.

The argument based on Clause 7 of the Office Memorandum involved a fresh interpretation of the same material and therefore amounted to re-agitation on the merits, not demonstration of an apparent error.

The reliance on Gurmail Singh and other authorities likewise disclosed no patent error in the earlier judgment.

Since no new evidence, manifest error, or analogous sufficient reason was established, the stringent requirements of review jurisdiction were not satisfied.

However, it found no ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to review the judgment dated 26 May 2026.

The review application was therefore dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.