AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, which is an application seeking leave of the Hon'ble High Court to file review petition, applications etc. supported by an affidavit executed by Debashis Chand, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Bilaspur (C.G.). On due consideration and on the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization, is permitted to file the instant review petition.
The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner for reviewing of the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 615/2026 (Central Board Of Trustees Employees Provident Fund, Vs Ganesh Prasad) whereby the writ appeal filed by the review petitioner has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order dated 21.07.2026 passed in the Writ Appeal No. 615/2026 and other batch of writ appeals suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the learned Division Bench has failed to properly appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees' Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. 2023 (12) SCC 701, and R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2018 (14) SCC 809. It is submitted that, as clarified in paragraph 50.4 of the judgment in Sunil Kumar B. (supra), the right of eligible employees to exercise the joint option under paragraph 11(4) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, read with the pre-amendment paragraph 11(3), stood crystallised in terms of the law declared in R.C. Gupta (supra). Since the respondents had retired before 01.09.2014 without exercising a valid option under paragraph 11(3) during their service tenure, they were not entitled to claim the benefit of higher pension merely on the basis of a subsequent joint option. It is, therefore, submitted that the distinction drawn by the learned Division Bench between paragraphs 50.7 and 50.8 of the judgment in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) warrants reconsideration and the review petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Division Bench has erred in distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750, on the ground that the present case concerns withdrawal of benefits consciously granted after due verification. According to the petitioners, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) was competent to correct the benefit granted contrary to the statutory scheme and to withdraw the enhanced pension in accordance with law. It is contended that the issuance of revised Pension Payment Orders and the disbursement of higher pension for a considerable period could not, by themselves, confer an entitlement contrary to the statutory provisions. Learned counsel would also submit that the observations in paragraph 39 of the judgment under review, concerning the earlier writ petitions in which liberty had been reserved to the EPFO to take appropriate steps after the decision of the review petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing, have been made on an incorrect appreciation of the relevant proceedings, as the writ petitions referred to therein were not the same proceedings in which such liberty had been reserved.
It is further submitted that the learned coordinate Bench has failed to appreciate the true import of the judgment dated 23.06.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026, wherein the claim for higher pension was rejected in the case of an employee who had retired before 01.09.2014 without exercising an option under paragraph 11(3) of the Scheme. Learned counsel would submit that the reasoning contained in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment under review, distinguishing the respondents from the employees considered in Power Grid Retired Employees Association v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine SC 750, is also erroneous. Referring to the pleadings in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that the employees in the said case had also been receiving enhanced pension after depositing the differential contribution pursuant to the judgment in R.C. Gupta (supra), and that the EPFO subsequently directed review of such enhanced pension and recovery of the alleged excess payments through its circular dated 25.01.2023. Thus, according to the petitioners, the factual circumstances in the present case are materially similar to those considered in Power Grid Retired Employees Association (supra), and the mere acceptance of joint options and payment of enhanced pension cannot create a substantive right contrary to the statutory scheme. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the order dated 21.07.2026 be reviewed and the writ appeals be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has rightly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) case which has subsequently been affirmed in Power Grid Retired Employees Association (supra). They would further submit that the matter cannot be reopended for rehearing in the garb of review petition and there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA No. 615/2026 and other connected matters.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the review petition and writ appeal also.
The question that arises for consideration in the present review petitions is whether the judgment dated 21.07.2026 passed in the Writ Appeal No. 615/2026 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason warranting review of the judgment in exercise of the review jurisdiction.
It is well settled that the power of review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised merely because the party is dissatisfied with the decision or seeks reconsideration of the issues already adjudicated. The scope of review is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced earlier, or any other sufficient reason analogous to the grounds recognised under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A review petition cannot be used as a vehicle for rehearing the matter on merits or for substituting one possible view with another.
In the present case, the submission of the review petitioners is that the learned coordinate Bench has incorrectly interpreted paragraphs 50.4, 50.7, 50.8 and 50.11 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and has failed to appreciate the effect of the judgment in R.C. Gupta (supra). The respondents, having retired before 01.09.2014 without exercising a valid option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, were not entitled to the benefit of higher pension. However, the judgment under review has considered the distinction between employees who had never exercised an option and those whose joint options were subsequently submitted pursuant to the circular dated 23.03.2017, accepted by the EPFO after scrutiny, and acted upon by issuing revised Pension Payment Orders and disbursing enhanced pension. The learned coordinate Bench has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of the factual circumstances obtaining in the cases before it and distinguished the decision in Power Grid Retired Employees Association (supra) on that basis.
The submission that the judgment in Power Grid Retired Employees Association (supra) involved employees who had also received enhanced pension after depositing the differential contribution does not, by itself, establish an error apparent on the face of the record. The question is not merely whether the factual circumstances of the two cases bear some similarity, but whether the legal distinction drawn by the coordinate Bench is manifestly erroneous and capable of being corrected within the limited scope of review. The judgment under review has expressly considered the relevant distinction in paragraphs 42 and 43 and recorded reasons for holding that the respondents could not be equated with employees whose claims for higher pension had never been accepted by the statutory authority. Whether another interpretation of the aforesaid judgments is possible would, at best, raise a question for appellate consideration and would not, without more, furnish a ground for review.
The contention based on Narendra Singh (supra) also does not, by itself, warrant review. The principle that an administrative authority may correct an erroneous grant of benefit contrary to the governing rules does not dispense with the necessity of examining the nature of the benefit granted, the circumstances in which it was granted, and the legal entitlement of the beneficiaries. In the judgment under review, the coordinate Bench has considered the aforesaid decision and distinguished it on the ground that the present case concerns benefits granted after verification and implementation of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners' insistence that the benefit was contrary to the statutory scheme essentially seeks reconsideration of the reasoning already adopted by the Court. Such reconsideration cannot be undertaken in review jurisdiction merely because the petitioners propose a different interpretation of the applicable law.
So far as the submission concerning paragraph 39 of the judgment under review is concerned, the petitioners contend that the writ petitions referred to therein were not the proceedings in which liberty had earlier been reserved to the EPFO to take appropriate steps after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing or after the decision of the review petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even assuming that the petitioners seek to demonstrate an incorrect reference to the earlier proceedings, it would be necessary to examine whether such reference constitutes a material error apparent on the face of the record and whether it has affected the ultimate conclusion. A factual or referential error, if established, does not automatically justify review unless it is material to the decision under challenge. The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen the entire matter on the basis of a contention that one of the reasons recorded by the Court ought to have been expressed differently.
The reliance placed on the judgment dated 23.06.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026 is also insufficient, by itself, to establish a ground for review. The mere fact that another writ appeal concerning entitlement to higher pension was decided differently, on its own factual circumstances, does not establish that the judgment under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners would be required to demonstrate that the legal position applicable to the respondents was overlooked or that the conclusion recorded in the judgment under review is vitiated by a manifest error. A review petition cannot be converted into a proceeding for reconsidering judicial decisions. merely because a party considers another decision more favourable to its case.
In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-9 held as under-
“9.Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:-
"15.1.In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under. (SCC pp. 669 & 675)
"10.It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11.Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC P. 251, para 56)
56.It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise."
33.The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:
"The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:
(i)Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii)Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(iii)Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv)Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate.
(v)An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied."
In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that "The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided."
On an overall consideration of the grounds urged in the review petitions, this Court finds that the review petitioners have substantially reiterated their submissions concerning the interpretation of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, the effect of the judgments in R.C. Gupta (supra), Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and Power Grid Retired Employees Association (supra) and the authority of the EPFO to withdraw the benefit of enhanced pension. These issues were considered while deciding the writ appeals. The review petitioners have not demonstrated that any material statutory provision or binding precedent was overlooked in such a manner as to constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds urged essentially invite this Court to revisit the interpretation adopted in the judgment under review and arrive at a different conclusion. Such an exercise would amount to rehearing the writ appeals on merits, which is impermissible in the limited jurisdiction of review.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for review within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
All the pending applications are disposed of.