The State of Manipur and Others vs Laishram Khogendra Singh and Others

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, C.J.

This Review is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench dt. 21.7.2014 in W.A. No. 55 of 2013.

The respondents were serving as Daily wagers on Muster roll under the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Govt. of Manipur (for short IF&CD) and they were engaged in different capacities such as Bulldozer Driver, Electrician/Head Electrician, Truck Driver, Chowkidar etc. by the Executive Engineer, Thoubal Project Division No. 6 of the IFCD. Engagement orders were issued in between 1979-1985. Even after completion of several years of engagement on Muster roll basis neither they were regularised nor were brought over to work charge establishment by the department. Therefore, the respondents filed two writ petitions vide C.R. No. 851/96 and CR No. 916/94 for regularisation of their services and both the writ petitions were disposed of on 11.7.1997 directing the review petitioners to consider their cases and it was further directed that pending consideration, their services shall not be disturbed. However, the said order passed in the two writ petitions was not complied with and the respondents continued to work on Muster Roll basis. The respondents, therefore, again approached this Court in W.P(C) No. 1014 of 1999 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 20.7.2011 directing the Review petitioners to bring the respondents over to work-charge establishment by 31.1.2012. A review application filed by the present review applicants against the said judgment was also rejected, but, liberty was granted to file appeal. Therefore, the review petitioners filed W.A. No. 55 of 2013 which has given rise to the present review petition.

In the writ appeal, the Division Bench did not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the review petitioners made two submissions for the purpose of review of the judgment passed in the writ appeal:--

"1- The Commissioner, IFCD had passed the order on 19.7.2011 to convert the Muster Roll employees to work-charged without following the rules of business; and

2- in similar cases, matter had gone to Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court did not direct for regularization of such Muster roll employees."

From the order of the learned single Judge, we find that reliance was placed on the instructions given by the Commissioner, IFCD dt. 19.7.2011 for converting Muster roll to work-charged. Before the learned single Judge no submission was made on behalf of the review petitioners to the effect that the Commissioner, IFCD had passed such order without following rules of business. This submission was also not made when the writ appeal was heard. For the first time in the review petition, such submission is made.

So far as the second ground is concerned, neither before the learned Single Judge nor in the writ appeal any such submission was made to the effect that the Supreme Court in similar cases refused to direct Muster Roll employees to be brought over to work-charged establishment and this submission is also made for the first time in this review petition. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu Kathuria and Others, . The apex Court in the said judgment held that review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self- evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. A review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. Two submissions made by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the review petitioners, if entertained, would amount to reopening the entire issue and rehearing of the writ application on merits.

We, therefore, find no reason to entertain this review petition and accordingly dismiss the same.