Dismissed

The Accountant General (a&E) v. O.K.Gangadharan

Kerala HC22 Nov 2022RP/111/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition concerning pension revision, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the application holding that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked against errors on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to make out any case for review.

What the court decided

The Accountant General (a&E) Vs O.K.Gangadharan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 22NDDAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,1944

¶4

RP NO. 111 OF 2006

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OF 6768/1999 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

O.K.GANGADHARAN (Retd. HEADMASTER/PRINCIPAL)
S/O.N.P.GOPALAN,, H.S.A.(HINDI),
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VEERANKAVU,
PRASIGEM, NEEYAR DAM P.O., KATTAKADA(VIA),,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶14

SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶15

THISREVIEWPETITIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RP NO. 111 OF 2006

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 05.09.2005 in O.P. NO. 6768/1999.

¶20

The learned Government Pleader submitted that this Court had relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Kerala v. Neelakandan Nair [2005 (3) KLT 717], and had ordered the respondents to take appropriate steps to refix the pension of the petitioner in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions within a period of three months. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of a revised pension, as the same is covered by separate Government Orders. It is stated that the petitioner can only claim the benefits of the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Accountant General v. Kunjamma [2003 (3) KLT 345] wherein it was held that the teachers who are permitted to continue beyond the actual date of superannuation are entitled to get the benefit of pay revision order. The petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits as ordered by this Court for which purpose this Review Petition is preferred.

¶21

I have heard the learned Government Pleader.

¶22

RP NO. 111 OF 2006

¶23

¶24

It is by now well settled that a review petition must be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. It is also settled beyond any manner of doubt that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.

¶25

In the case on hand, this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, held that the matter is covered in view of the law laid down in Neelakandan Nair( supra). If the above decision was erroneous on merit, it was open to the petitioner to approach the court of appeal and seek correction. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed

¶26

RP NO. 111 OF 2006

¶27

¶28

by the subordinate court. As held by the Apex Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, review is not an appeal in disguise.

¶29

Having considered the entire facts, I am of the considered opinion that

¶30

the petitioner has not made out any case for reviewing the judgment.

¶31

This Review Petition will stand dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

avs

The Accountant General (a&E) v. O.K.Gangadharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Accountant General (a&E) v. O.K.Gangadharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabha K. Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Adeel.M., Vs the State of Kerala

Assumption Public School Vs State of Kerala

Divya Menon K., Vs State of Kerala

H. Nazeena Vs the State of Kerala

Nazeerudeen B Vs the State of Kerala