Smt K J Vijayamma Vs Hmt Limited

SMT K J VIJAYAMMA D/O K.N. KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNOLOGY), R/AT No.10, 10^TH MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶16

(BY SRI. S. MUBARAK BEGUM, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

AND:

¶19

HMT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT BHAVAN, No.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:20446-DB RP No. 525 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD. HMT BHAVAN, No.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶24

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 4.07.2024 PASSED IN WA No.168/2024 (C/W CCC No.226/2024 )VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶32

The petitioner in W.P. No.18409/2018 has preferred the

¶33

present review petition seeking review of the order dated 04.07.2024 passed in W.A. No.168/2024.

¶34

The petitioner was earlier employed in HMT Limited. The petitioner had filed W.P. No.18409/2018 seeking refixation of pension pursuant to the revision of pay scales and for payment of arrears. The said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20446-DB RP No. 525 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

30.10.2023, whereby respondent No.2 was directed to revise the pay scale, as extended to the employees of HMT International Limited, with effect from 01.01.1997 till the date of superannuation, and to re-fix the pension accordingly. The learned Single Judge issued the aforesaid directions by following the judgment in W.P. No.2175/2022 dated 04.07.2023.

¶38

W.A. No.955/2023 was preferred by the respondents challenging the order passed in W.P. No.2175/2022. The Division Bench, by order dated 11.06.2024, allowed the said writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, holding that the benefit of the 1997 scheme is applicable only to those employees who were on the rolls as on 28.02.2014. This Court, while deciding the writ appeal under review, followed the aforesaid judgment in W.A. No.955/2023 and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The said order is sought to be reviewed in the present petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the prescription of the cut-off date of 28.02.2014 for applying and implementing the 1997 pay revision scheme is erroneous. It is

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20446-DB RP No. 525 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

contended that, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay revision as extended to other similarly placed employees. It is further submitted that the scheme does not prescribe any such cut-off date.

¶43

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶44

The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18409/2018 was founded on the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.2175/2022. The said order has subsequently been set aside in W.A. No.955/2023. Once the very basis of the order of the learned Single Judge has been overturned in appeal, and the order passed by this Court in the writ appeal, following the said Division Bench judgment, is sought to be reviewed. We are of the considered view that the grounds urged and the submissions canvassed in the present review petition are nothing but a reiteration of the earlier grounds and submissions already considered and dealt with.

¶45

It is well settled that re-arguing the matter on the very same grounds, which have already been considered and answered, is

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:20446-DB RP No. 525 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

not permissible in review jurisdiction. This Court can exercise the power of review only when a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated. In the present case, no such mistake

¶50

or error apparent on the face of the record is made out.

¶51