Dismissed

G.Satyanarayana v. St.Georges Grammer School

Telangana HC11 Mar 2022CCCA/109/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a review petition filed by a school against a judgment awarding retirement benefits to a former employee. The court held that the appeal was properly decided, no patent error existed, and the petition was an attempt to reargue matters already heard, resulting in dismissal and costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on petitioner.

G.Satyanarayana Vs St.Georges Grammer School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

IANo.3OF 2023 IN

¶8

CITY CIVIL COURTAP EAL NO: 109 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶9

Between:

¶10

St.George's Grammer School, Abids, Hyderabad^{rep. by its Warded and} Correspondent ...PETITIONERyRESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

G.Satyanarayana, S/o.Ananthaiah, aged about 72^years, Occ:^{Retd. Employee,} No.1 -9-227 I 46 Lalithanagar Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS

¶13

Petition under Section 114 CPC RyW Order-47 Rule-1 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court may be pleased to review the^judgment and decree^{daled1110312O22 in} CCCAS No. 109 ot 2014 and consequently dismiss the appeal.

¶14

counsel for the Appellant : sRl. A sRlNlvAs

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI CH. SAMSON BABU

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶18

Rev.I.A.No.3 of 2o23 ln C.C.C.A.No.109 of 2Ol4

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This petition is filed, under Section 114 read rvith Order 47 Rule I ol C.P.C. seeking to review the Judgment and decree, dated 1 l.O3.2O'22, passed by this Court in C.C.C.,.No.lO9 of 2014.

¶21

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶22

One G.Satyanarayana, a retired Telugu^pandit, u'ho is the responde n t / ap pellan t/ plaintiff herein filed the rsuit being O.S.No.899 of 2OO8 against St. George's Grammar School, Hyderabad, represented by its Warden and Correspondent, who is the revieu' pe titioner/ respondent/ defendant hereir seeking a declaration that his last pay should be Rs.17,z-75/- and consequentl]- sought for recovery of difference of :rrrrount in pension and dearness relief, gratuity, pay and allowances and encashment of lcave salary to a tune of Rs.6,54,462/- The trial Court, on a consideration o[ entire material available on record, dismissed the said suit of the plaintiff, by judgmen t dated 23.01.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the responden t / plaintiff filed thc aforesaid appeal being CCCA No. lO9 of 2014. zrnd this

¶23

¶24

Court, after evaluating^{the entire evidenceboth oral and} documentary, allowed^{the appeal with costs by setting aside the} judgment and decree of the trial^{Court, by judgmentdated} 11.03.2022.^{Aggrievedby the same, the defendantfiled this} petition seeking to review the^{judgment and decrce dated} 1I.O3.2O22^{passedin the said CCCANo' 109 ot 2Ol4 on the} following grounds:

¶25

il^{'fhe reuieu petitioner/ defendant} ts a non-aided minoitg institution and^the Post in which the respondent/ plaintiff^{utas tuorking is a non-aided post} and as such the^{prouisionsapplicable to tle Gouemment} institutions/ colleges/^{sclrcols are not applicable to tle} re u ie u p etitio ner / defendant.

¶26

B) TLE Hon'ble Supreme^{Court of India in Satimbla} Sharma and oth.ers^{us. St. Paru l's SeniorSecondary} School and others^{reported in (2011) -t3 SCC 760, leld} that tLe teach.ers in tle^{piuateun-aidedminoity school} had no ight to^{claimsalary equal to that of tLeir} counterparts working in^{Gouernmentschoolsand} Gouemment aided schools-^{Admittedlg,the reuietu} petitioner is a priuate un-aided^{school an'd the post is also} un-aided post, as^{such, the respondent/ plaintiff cannot} ctaim paitg with Gouernment^{schoolemplogees'}

¶27

C) Tte uery claim^{of tlrc respondent/plaintiffis barred} bg limitation.

¶28

D) The respondent/^{plaintiff, os per his own pleodings'} stoted. that the management^{of defendant school} failed^to follout^{the nles} from^{01.O4.1999,as such' he acquiesced} and agreel. to the same-^{Tle claim is, therefore, baned} bg limitation.

¶29

E) It is well settled^{that one cannot claim} paiiy/ equality based on^{an illegalitg/ actioncontroryto} laut or ord.ers, tuhich^{are not in consonanceuithlaut, and} the some connot be^{taken os a bindittg precedent and in}

¶30

anA euert, there is nothinq on record to shou compliance ttith the Gouentment G.Os.

¶31

F) There is no basis much less legat ba.;is for declaration- that his pay is Rs. 17,4T5/ - ttthen the respondent/ plaintiff neuer challenged the ftxation of pag all through ltis seruice.

¶32

The learned Counsel for the review petitioner r:lied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjula and. others Vs. Shgamsundar and others,t in which it was held that fi.rst appellate Court is mandatorily required to comply uith requirements of Order 41 rule 3I and non-obseruance of these requirements leads to inJirmity in Judgment. TLLe learned Counsel for the review petitioner argued that first appeal is a valuable right and at that stage, all questions of fac._ and law decided by trial Court are open for reconsideral_ion. The Judgment oI the appellate Court shall reflect r:onscious application ol mind and must record Court's findings, s,upported by reasons lor its decision in respect of all issues, a,ong with contentions put iorth and pressed by parties. He furtht:r argued that Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, l9O8 prc,vides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a Court of original jurisdiction. Ordcr 4I rule 3I C.P.C provides the guidelines to the appellate Court for deciding the appeal. This rule nrandates that the Judgment of the appellate Court shall state:

'1zo:zy^{I sccoo}

a) poirtts for dete rmination;

¶38

b) the decision thereon;

¶39

c) the reasons for the decision;^and

¶40

¶41

d) uthere the decree oppeoled from^{is reuersedor uaried,} tLrc relief to tuhich the appellant^{is entitled.}

¶42

He also stressed upon the^{fact that High Court shall} formulate proper points for^{its consideration under Order 4 I} rule 31 of C.P.C and^{proceedto hearthe appeal on meritson} the relevant terms.

¶43

He further relied upon the decision^{of the HonbleApex} Court in the case of Om Prakash^{and others Vs. Rarn} Kumar and others,2 in^{which it was held that a partg cannot} be granted a relief which is not^{claimed, if the ciratmstancesof} the case are such that the^{granting of such relief uould result} in seious prejud-ice to the interested^{partg and depriue him of} the ualuable rights under the statute^{The review petitioner} mainly contended that their institution^{is an} un-aided minority institution, as such^{the provisions applicable to the} Government institutions/ colleges and^{schoolsarenot} applicable to them and they further^{contendedthat} respondent/ ptaintiff himsetf stated that^{they failed to follow} the rules lrom O1.O4.1999 and^{thus it is barred by limitation} and also contended that there^{is no legal basis for declaration}

¶44

t ( tgqr) t scc la I

¶45

that his pay \,as Rs,.17,475/-, as hc never challe,rged the Iixation of pay all through his service. All these points were already dcalr with in the .Judgmcnt in detail.

¶46

In thc Judgment dared 71.03.2022, passed by this Court, It rvas also held that in the appointment orcler, it was specifically mentioned that employee is entitled for usual allowances admissible under the A.p. Government Rules, but the revieu, petitioner has not filed any document to sihow that it is working ur-rder the ICSC, Neu. Delhi and exemptr:d from the Government Orders o[ the Andhra pradesh regar.ding pay fixation. Basing on the evidence of p.W.2, the plaintifl-in the suit called for service records and acquittance registers of one Papaiah Sastry, Jayakar premanth, Chidambaram and Satj,a Raj, but the same were not filed deliberately by the management.^p.W.2 also clearly stated that as per Circular dated 15.10.2003, defendan t/ management paying the pay scales as per the Government Orders.

¶47

The revierv petitioner also contended that thc. pay fixation was revised in the years 1999 and 2O05, but the respondent/ plaintiff did not challenge the same and kept quiet till retirement, but in thc Judgment it was discrrssed

¶48

¶49

that till thc retirement ol P.W. 1, benefits^{were not extended to} P.W.2 and other teachers, as such only after^cxtendingthe benefits to them, he came up with the suit. The^review petitioner also stated that there is no basis for last^{pay as} Rs.17,4751-, but the respondent/^{plaintiff before filing of the} suit issued legal notice by clearly mentioning^{the averments} of the plaint and later he^{had also filed the suit beforethe} trial Court. lt is for the review^{petitioner to submit any} document to disprove the^{versiono[ the respondent/plaintiff,} but tailed to do so, as such considering^{all the facts, the trial} Court allowed the appeal. Though, issues^{were not framedin} the appeal, this Court has^gone through^{the entire record and} re-appreciated the evidence and dealt with all^{the pointsin} detail. Thcrefore, it cannot be said that^thereis non-compliance of Order 41 rule 31 C.P.C.

¶50

It was also observed in the Judgment that^school management implemented the orders of^{the Government frorn} Ol.O4.2OO3 and paid arrears of seven months^from September, 2OOO to March, 2001 but failed^{to implement the} same later and it clearly shows that they^{followedorders of} Government for certain period and later avoided the^same. The respondent/ plaintiff hled E.P.No.726 of 2022^{basing on}

¶51

¶52

the Judgmcnt in C.C.C.A.No. lO9 of 2014, but tht: review petitioner rvithout complying thc saicl Order, pre:er red the present revicu, petition contending that relief granr.e<l in the appeal is bt:yond the pleadings. [n para No.3 of the.Judgment of the appeal, the respondent/ plain tiff asked for le,st pay @) Rs.l7 ,475 / - per month instead of Rs. I 2,lOO /-. So i.rlso, he asked for gratuity basing on the lasr pay @r Rs. 17 ,4ZS / _. Therefore, the argument of the revier.l, petitioner that this Court granted relief which is not claimed and it causes serious prejudice to them and deprives all their value.ble right cannot be accepted. It was specifically mentionecl in the Judgment that though the petitioner/ responden( school engaged the advocate, he has not come fonvard to a(lvance arguments, as such basing on I he material availa trlc on record, this Court granted decree in Iavour of the respondent/ plain tiff. Now, the petitioner/defendanr carne up with this application to review the Judgment. The scope of review is verv limited.

¶53

It is stated by the review petitioner/ de fenda n t that their counsel could not make arguments before this Court and as such the true state of aflairs ancl legal positiorr r:ould not be brought to the notice of this Court. It is stat(:cj that

¶54

¶55

after hearing^{the argumentsof the learned Counsel for the} respondent/^{appellant/ plaintiff, this Courtallowedthe appeai} onIL.o3.2022.ltisfurtherStatedthatafterreceiptofnotice in E.P.No.726^{of 2022 hledby the respondent/plaintilfbefore} the trial Court,^{they came to know about the disposal o[ the} appeal and^{when they contactedtheir counsel'Mr'Samson} Babu, he^{apprised them of the facts lnitially'they intend to} contest the^{said E.P. proceedings' but they were advised to} file this review^{petition, as there is an error apparent on the} face of the record.^{It is further stated that by oversight'the} counsel,^{who was appearingon theirbehalf'could not inform} them when^{the appeal was listcd for hearingand as such the} review petitioner/^{defendant rvas not aware of the disposalof} the appeal.^{They have also filed an application seeking to} condone the^{delay of 289 days in filing the reviewpetition'}

¶56

1O. The respondent/^{plaintiff stated that he filed the suit} on 28.O3.2OO8^{and the same was dismissed on 23'Ol '2012} and thereafter^{he filed the appealoo 26'04'2012 and it was} allowed on^{I l.O3-2O22andthereafter thereview} petitioner/ defendant^{hled this review petition on 25 'O1 2023} without paying^{the retirement benefitsto him and as suchhe} requested this^{Court todo j usticeas expeditiouslyas}

" ''u

possible

I 1. Aclmitredly, the revieu, petitione r/ delendrtr.r r is St. George's Grammar School, Hyderabad, represente(l by its Warden-cum-Correspondent and when they contested the suit before the trial Court and appeal before this Court, one Mr.Ch.Samson Babu, advocate, filed vakalat on th:ir_ behalf and as such it is for them to be in touch with therr counsel to enquire about the stage of their case before the C)r.lrt, but they failed to do so. Moreover, the review petitioner/defe ndant simply stated that their advoca tr: has not informed about the proceedings of the Court ilnd they came to knou, about the disposal of the appeal orrlv when they received notice in the E.p. Thus, it clearly shou,s tilat the review petitioner/defendant slept over the matter till liling of the E.P. and they cannot now agitate before the Cour.t that they got merits in the case and thus the judgment p:rssed in the appeal is to be reviewed and a favourable orcler is to be passed in their favour. It is not the case wl-Lere an opportunity was not given to the review pe titioner/ deferrdant, but that the opportunify given to them was no[ ave.il_-d b5. them and now they cannot take advantage of their rnistake and seek review of the judgment uncler appeal.

¶61

¶62

Admittedly, the scope^{of thc reviewis very limitedanda} review application can only^{be entertainedifthere is any} error apparent on the^face of^{the record, which the review} petitioner/defendant has faited^{to point out in the instant} case. An order can be^{reviewedby a Court only on the} prescribed grounds menLioned^{in Order 47 Rule I CPC' An} application for review is^{more restricted than that of an} appeal and the Court^{of review has limited jurisdiction as to} the definite limit mentioncd^{in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself'} The power of review^{cannot be exercised as an inherentpower} nor can an appellate^{power be exercisedin the guiseof power} of review.

¶63

In Parison Deui u.^{Sumitri Deuis,the Apex Court} observed and held as^undcr:-

¶64

"7. It is taell settled^{thot reuieLuproceedings haue to be} stictlg conftned to^{the ambit ond scope of Order 47} Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra^{lndustries Ltd. u. Gout.} of A.P., AIR 1964 SC^{1372this Court opined:}

¶65

"Wlta[ houeuer, LUe are now concem-ed uith^is tohetlrcr the statement^{in the order of September 1959} ttrut the case did r.ot inuolue^{any substantialquestion} of tau i,s an^"error apporett^{on the} face^{of the record')-} Tle fact that on the earlier^{occasionthe Court held on} an identical state of facts^{that a substantiolquestion} of latu arose taould^{not per se be conclusiue,} for^tLe

'^{*t907;e scc zt5}

earlier order itself might be erroneous. Sirnilart.y, e:uert if the statement utas utrong, it tuould not folloL, that it u)as an^"effor apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction uhich is real, though it mig ht not alLUaAS be capable of exposition, betuteen L ntere erroneous decision and a decision urhich could be characterized as uitiated by "error apparent'. A reuiew is bg no means an appeal in disguise utherebg an erroneous decision is reheard and conected, out lies onlg for patent enor."

¶70

Again, in Meera Bhanja u. Nirmala .Kumai Choudhury, (1995) l SCC 17O uthile quoting utith approual a passage from Aibam Tuleshutar Shttnna u. Aribom Hshak Sharma i(1979) 4 SCC 389|, thi:; Couri once again held that reuietu proceedings are n<tt by uaa of an appeal and haue to be strictlg confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

¶71

Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment n,.aq be open to reuietu inter alia if tlLere is a mistake or an eftor apparent on the face of the record. An error, uthich is not self-euident and has to be detected bll a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be ant eruor apparent on the face of the record justifying the (_.ourt to exercise its pou.ter of reuiew under Order 47 ,?ule l CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Orcter 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A ret'ieru petition, it must be remembered has a limited ptrrytose and cannot be allouted to be "an appeal in disc,uise".

¶72

In State of West Bengal u, Kdmdl Senguptd,lhe Apex

¶73

Court emphasized the requirement of thc review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery ol a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not.,vithin his knowledge and held thus:

¶74

'(:oo8) I scc 6tl

¶75

¶76

''21. At ttlis stage it is apposite to obserue that rulrcre a reuieut ts sought on the ground of discouery^{of tteuDtatteror eurdence,such} matter or euidence nrust be releuottt^{QtLdtttust be oJ such a} characler that if the same had^{been produced,itmighthaue} attered the^judgment. In other roords, mere dlscovery^{of neu)} or important matter or euid.ence is 'I.ot sulJicieat^ground. for revieu ex debito^justittqe. Not onlg this, the Partg seekiag reuleu h(:'s^(I'lso to shotu that such additiondl^{matter or} evidence ta(rs not urithin its knoutledge^{qndeaen qlter the} exercise of d.ue d.lligence, the sdme could aot^{be produced} belore the court edrlier.(entplnsis added)

¶77

Further, the Apex Court had an occasion to^{discuss the term} 'mistake or error apparent' in the following^words

¶78

"22. Tle term "mistake or etror opparent" bA its uery connotation signifies at7 error uhich^{is euidentper} se from the record of th.e case^{and does not require} detailed examination, scrutinA and elucidation^either of the facts or the legol position. If an^error is^{not self-} euirlent and detection thereof requires long^{debate and} process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on tLrc Jace of the^record for^{the purpose of} Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(fl^{of the Act.To put} it differentlg on order or decision^{or judgment cannot be} corrected merelg because it is enoneousⁱⁿ lau^{or on tlae} ground that a different uieu.t could haue been^takenbg the court/ tribunal on a point of fact^{or low. In anA case,} uthile exercising the pouer of^{reubw, the court/tribunol} concerned connot sit in appeal ouer^ils judgment/ decision."

¶79

ln Patel Narshi Thakershi o. Shri Pradguman^Singhii

¶80

ArjunsinghJts, the Apex Court held^as follottLs:

¶81

"4......1t^{is uell settled that the} Pouer^{to reaiew is} rnot an inherent pou-)er. It must be confened bg latu either specificallg or by neessary impLication.^No prouision in the Act uas brought to notice from^u.thichit

¶82

'^{( rgzt) I scc ala}

¶83

¶84

could be gathered that the Gouemment had p5,y1sy 76 reuieu, its otun order. If the Gouemm;"', ;;; ,ii"oo*., to reuieut its own order, .it is obuious ,nolii""ir;"gor" could rtot haue reuierued its ord.er-.....

¶85

15 A[ter' <liscussing a series of decisions on revlcw lurisdiction in Kq.mlesh Verma u. Magqurati6, the A,ex Court observed thaL reuiettt proceedings haue to be stictly confined to the scope and arnbit of Order XLWI Rule 1, CpC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the reuieut application has alreadg been dealt Luith and answered., parties are not ,zrt titled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an ,zltematiue uiew is possible The principles for exercising reuiew jttrisdiction were succinctlg summari_zed in the captioned case as below:

¶86

l6 Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds ol review are marntainable as stipulated by the statute:

¶87

(1) Discouery of neu and important matter of euidence uhich, a"fter the withinkitow*,n""Ti"if,"J,Ix:""ir,::ill;,!xl,"lJ produced by him;

¶88

(2) Mistake or ero

¶89

the face of the recorct; - (s) A,a ",h., "u;"i::l::::::n From the specific legal position, it is clear that the limitations on

¶90

exercise of the power of review are well settled. The fir-st and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that liYgrn1t,:vreu,^{of which is sought, suffers} from anr error 6 (l0 t_t ) 8 SC.C 310

¶91

¶92

apparent on the face of the^{order and permittingthe order to} stand will lead to failure of^{justice. ln the absenceof any such} error, finality attached to the^{judgment/ordcrcannotbe} disturbed. The power of review^{can be exercisedfor 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.

¶93

17 . A perusal of impugned^{judgment under review would} show that the impugned^{judgmenthas becn passed blr this} Court, after considering the^{materialavailable on record and thc} arguments advanced by the learned^{Counsel appearing for the} appeltant/ plaintiff, and that^{no error apparent on thefzrceof} record could be pointed out by the^{learned Counsel lor the} review petitioner. Now, the result^{of the judgment cannotbe} altered under review^{proceedings.Further, the review pelitioner} is trying to seek re-hearing of the^{appeal whichis not within the} scope of the review. It appears that^{this reviewapplicationis} filed for party satisfaction though^{it is not well withinthe scope} of the review. The points^{raised by thereview} petitioner/defendant were already^{answercdinthe appeal'} Moreover, they have raised the said^{pointsbeforethe trial Court} and also in the written statement.^{Me rely becaltse,he could not}

¶94

I-5

¶95

contest the appeal, nou, he is not entitled for revrew of the j udgmen t

¶96

The Counsel on record may be privileged l.o represent their client, bnt this Court has to see the interests of both the parties belore it while arriving to the conclusion that review cannot bc treated like an appeal in disguise. ,lhe mere possibitity o[ tu,<t views on the subject is not a grounc[ Ibr review. Error contempla ted under the rule must be such which is apparent on thc face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. If at all, the review petitioner/ defendant is aggrieved by the Judgment, hc should have prefer a second appeal instead of filing this revieu, application. Thus, it clearly shows; that this revieu, application is filed only to delay the payment and to defeat the rights of the respondent/ plaintiff even alter disposal of the appeal. Therefore, this Court finds that no l3r,rund of review is made out and the Review petition is absolutt:I}. devoid of merits and thc same is liable to be dismissed.

¶97

I /

¶98

Learned Counsel for the revieu, petitioner/ c.el.endant knowing pretty wefl about the scope of the review, camt: .p with this petition and as such thc valuable time of this C cr,rrt has been u,asted ilt the matter already decided by this Cour:. In the

I I I . i I l

"rq

guise of review petition, the re spondent/ plaintiff, who alrcady had the judgment in their favour, was restrained from reaping the fruits of the decree. Therefore, to curtail this type of practice, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to impose costs of Rs. 1O,O0O/- on the review petitioner/ defendan t.

¶103

Accordingly, the Review I.A.No.3 of 2023 is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,O00/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to be paid by the review petitioner/defendant to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, within a period of One week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶104

SdI K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

\l^\1

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge,^{City Civil Court'Hyderabad.}

¶109