AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basant Balaji J,
This review petition is filed by the respondent in O.P.(KAT) No. 148 of 2019. The said Original Petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 against the order in O.A.No.900 of 2016 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 31.10.2017. The issue that arose for consideration was regarding the disallowance of the claim of the respondent for subsistence allowance for the period from 5.10.2002 to 16.3.2016 when the petitioner was out of Government service by way of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed.
The Tribunal held that the applicant was under suspension during the said period and therefore, he is entitled to subsistence allowance and also directed to reckon the said period as qualifying service for pensionary benefit. By the judgment under review, taking note of Rule 56B(9) part I Kerala Service Rules (KSR) as well as Note 6 of Rule 56B(9) part 1 KSR and since there was no challenge to Ext.P6, it was declared that the period of suspension from 30.11.2000 till 11.1.2007 shall be governed by Note 6 to 56B(9) of part 1 KSR. The review petitioner does not have any ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Apex court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy and others (2022 SCC Online SC 1034) held as follows:
“31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Courts jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter.”
Because of the settled proposition of law as stated above, we find no merit in the Review Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.