M.Sakthivel vs Union Of India

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

This is a petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. The petitioner seeks to review judgment dated 08.06.2016 in the original petition.

O.P.(CAT) No.144 of 2016 was filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.50 of 2014. The petitioners filed the said original petition claiming that they were entitled for refixation of pensionary benefits, counting the annual increment that fell due on the 1st July, although they retired on 30th June in the respective years. The Tribunal did not allow that claim. This Court as per the judgment dated 08.06.2016 affirmed the said view taken by the Tribunal. The petitioners would now contend that the Apex Court as per Annexure I judgment dated 11.04.2023 accepted the contentions of various employees that they were entitled to reckon the annual increment fell due on 1st July, despite their retirement on the preceding day, i.e., 30th June of the respective years. The petitioners accordingly would contend that on account of the said decision of the Apex Court and consequent orders issued by various Departments of the Central Government entitling retired officers the benefit of increment which fell due on 1st July, the order of this Court in O.P.(CAT) No.144 of 2016 is liable to be reviewed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned DSGI-in-charge.

As rightly pointed out by the learned DSGI in charge, subsequent overruling, reversal or modification of a decision is not a ground for review. Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code makes that position clear. Dilating the said provision, the Apex Court in Government of NCT of Delhi and another v. K.L.Rathi Steels Limited and others [(2024) 7 SCC 315] held that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of a law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of the same court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot canvass for review of the judgment in O.P.(CAT) No.144 of 2016 on the ground of a subsequent decision of the Apex Court.

The petitioner canvasses another ground also for review. It is that following such subsequent decision of the Apex Court that the employees who retired on 31st May are entitled to get the benefit of the next annual increment while computing pension, several Government Departments issued orders granting such a relief to their employees. The petitioner would claim that in view of that the judgment in OP(CAT) No.144 of 2016 requires a relook.

It is the trite law that subsequent events, if the same would come within the purview of “for any other sufficient reason” as used in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, review of the order is possible. While disposing of OP(CAT) No.144 of 2016, this Court considered the materials then available on record. Subsequently, various Departments issued orders entitling their employees to get the benefit of the annual increment as on the next day of the retirement. Although a subsequent event, when such orders bring about an obvious discrimination among the employees of the same class, it is just and legal to consider the impact of such subsequent orders in this case. We are therefore of the view that this review petition is liable to be allowed so that this Court can consider the contentions of the petitioner in OP(CAT) No.144 of 2016 afresh taking also into account the aforementioned orders issued by various departments.

Accordingly, this review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 08.06.2016 in OP(CAT) No.144 of 2016 is recalled. The original petition will be listed for hearing before the Bench as per roster.