Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Brij Lal And Otthers

Sandeep Sharma, J

CMP(T) No. 1214 of 2020

For the reasons set out in the application, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. The petition be registered.

Review Petition (T) No. 1 of 2023

By way of present Review Petition filed under S.22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioner to review and recall the order dated 6.7.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2929 of 2015, titled Brij Lal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the respondents to release arrears of due and admissible dearness relief and pension alongwith pension allowance @ 5%, 10% and 15% on attaining age of 65, 70 and 75 years.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged in reply filed to the Original Application. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held:

“11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....”

This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise.

Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.