Review jurisdiction cannot reopen the merits absent a patent error apparent on the record.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 15 October 2025 in W.P. No. 5523/2020, by which the respondent was directed to receive the minimum of the revised pay scale under the Seventh Pay Commission with effect from 1 January 2016.

The State relied on a PHE Department circular dated 8 August 2022 and contended that the benefit was payable only from 15 December 2016.

The respondent opposed the review, relying on the decision in Virendra Kumar Shivhare v. State of M.P., concerning a similarly situated PHE employee, and on the decision in Nathuram Kushwaha v. State of M.P., concerning similarly situated PWD employees, both recognizing entitlement from 1 January 2016.

The Court first condoned the delay in filing the review petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Whether the State had established a ground under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the order directing payment of the Seventh Pay Commission benefit from 1 January 2016?

Whether the PHE Department circular dated 8 August 2022 justified restricting the respondent’s entitlement to 15 December 2016, despite decisions granting similarly situated employees the benefit from 1 January 2016?

Whether the respondent could be subjected to differential treatment merely because he was an employee of the PHE Department rather than the PWD Department?

The Court applied Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is maintainable only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Relying on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue matters already decided.

Under State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, an error apparent must be prima facie visible and must not require detailed examination or reasoning.

The Court also relied on Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, for the principle that only a patent or manifest error warranting correction and preventing miscarriage of justice can justify review.

The Court further applied the principle of equal treatment among similarly situated State employees.

The Court found that the State’s reliance on the 8 August 2022 circular did not demonstrate any patent error in the earlier order.

In Virendra Kumar Shivhare, the State had not disputed that Seventh Pay Commission benefits were extended to employees of all departments with effect from 1 January 2016.

Likewise, the Coordinate Bench had directed payment from 1 January 2016 to similarly situated PWD employees in Nathuram Kushwaha, and the State’s writ appeal was dismissed; the State’s counsel had also conceded that there was no merit on the merits of the appeal.

These decisions supported the respondent’s entitlement and undermined the State’s attempt to distinguish the case solely on the basis of departmental affiliation.

The Court held that reconsideration of the effective date on the basis of the circular would require reappreciation of the matter and would effectively convert the review into an appeal, which is impermissible under the settled review principles.

It held that no error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient ground for review had been established.

The respondent, as a similarly situated PHE employee, could not be denied the Seventh Pay Commission benefit from 1 January 2016 merely because of his department.

Accordingly, after condoning the filing delay, the Court dismissed Review Petition No. 1092 of 2026 and left undisturbed the order dated 15 October 2025 in W.P. No. 5523/2020.