Subsequent judgment in another case does not justify reviewing orders that attained finality after inordinate delay.

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on a contingency basis in 1996 and was regularized on 06.11.1996.

His services were terminated on 23.01.1997 on the ground that they were "no longer required." His initial challenge (W.P. No. 1881/1997) was dismissed on 03.10.2002, with the court holding the termination was a discharge simpliciter.

Fourteen years later, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 293/2017, which was dismissed on 18.12.2017 solely on the grounds of delay.

In 2026, the petitioner filed this Review Petition seeking to reopen the 2017 dismissal, citing a subsequent judgment (06.05.2025) in Vijay Singh Bhadauriya v. State of M.P. that granted relief to a similarly situated employee.

1. Whether the review petition is maintainable despite a delay of 2910 days (approximately eight years).

2. Whether a subsequent judgment in a different case constitutes a valid ground for review of a concluded proceeding.

The court applied the principle that review is not an appellate remedy and cannot be used to revive proceedings that have attained finality, particularly after inordinate and unexplained delay.

It adhered to the Law of Limitation and the principle of finality of judicial proceedings, which necessitates that a "stale claim" cannot be entertained without sufficient cause.

a subsequent decision in another case does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of review jurisdiction.

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any plausible, cogent, or satisfactory explanation for the 2910-day delay in filing the review petition.

The court noted a pattern of dilatory litigation, as the underlying Writ Appeal had also been dismissed for a 14-year delay.

The Bench reasoned that entertaining such a petition after nearly eight years would defeat the object of the Law of Limitation and undermine the finality of judgments.

Consequently, the court declined to exercise its review jurisdiction or even express an opinion on the merits of the Vijay Singh Bhadauriya judgment, as the threshold of explaining the delay was not met.

The Review Petition was dismissed solely on the grounds of gross, inordinate, and unexplained delay.

The court held that without sufficient cause for the delay, the merits of the parity claim or the subsequent judgment could not be considered.

No order as to costs was made.