Review Petition Cannot Reopen Issues Already Determined by Merits and Affirmed by Superiour Courts

The petitioner, a retired Professor of Tripura University, sought enhanced in-service and post-service benefits, including higher pension and interest on delayed payments

Following several rounds of litigation, the High Court previously directed the University to pay 7% interest on arrears

The University’s subsequent appeals and review petitions were dismissed

The petitioner then filed a new writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2024] and a subsequent Writ Appeal [W.A. No. 89 of 2024], both of which were dismissed on the grounds that the amounts due had been paid and computation of benefits could not be re-agitated in writ jurisdiction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave Petition and a subsequent Review Petition against the Writ Appeal judgment

The petitioner has now filed this review petition before the High Court of Tripura seeking to review the judgment dated 29.07.2024

Whether there exists any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence sufficient to warrant a review of the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 89 of 2024

Whether a review petition can be maintained in the High Court after the underlying judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition and a subsequent Review Petition

The court applied the principles governing review jurisdiction, which limit the scope of review to the discovery of new and important evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record

It implicitly relied on the doctrine of merger and finality of litigation, noting that once a judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot disturb that position

The court also referred to Article 136 of the Constitution of India as cited by the petitioner, though noting its irrelevance to the High Court's review powers

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for review, such as an error of law or fact visible on the record

The Bench noted that the issues regarding the computation of service and post-retiral benefits had already been exhaustively adjudicated in prior proceedings and affirmed by the Supreme Court

The Court reasoned that the current petition was an attempt to bypass the finality of the Supreme Court’s orders and revive a matter that had already reached a legal conclusion

It found the petitioner's arguments regarding fundamental rights under Article 16 to be insufficient to reopen a decided case

The Court concluded that the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 89 of 2024 had attained finality upon the dismissal of the petitioner’s SLP and Review Petition by the Supreme Court. No order as to costs was made