2017 (9) TMI 2026 - HC - Indian Laws

Review Application - Error Apparent on the Face of Record - Application for Appointment on 'Compassionate Ground' - HELD THAT - On an overall assessment of the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling manner and also this Court bearing in mind yet another fact that from the side of first wife there is no rival claim in regard to the compassionate appointment, (she died being issueless) and in view of the well settled legal position that the purported new issues/alleged new facts, viz., (a) the statement of Respondent's/Petitioner's mother, Vijayakumari dated 06.02.1995 before the Sub-Inspector of Namakkal Police Station and (b) the undated Petition/Application of Chinnu (his father's brother) addressed to the Sub Inspector of Namakkal Police Station, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that these issues were not raised before the Learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the main Writ Petition nor before the Appellate Court at the time of hearing or at the time of passing the Judgment and viewed in that perspective, these new facts/issues cannot be allowed to be raised before this Court. The Review Applicants' cannot heighten or improve their case, which was not there either in the Original Writ Petition or in the Writ Appeal by placing heavy reliance on the alleged statement of the Respondent/Petitioner's mother dated 06.02.1995 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station and the Application/Petition of the Respondent/Petitioner's father's brother, one Chinnu, son of Arumugam, Unjanai of Thiruchengode circle etc., Also the well settled legal proposition to be borne in mind is that 'Review' erases the Original Judgment or Order passed by a competent Court of Law from the inception. In the instant case, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case and on an overall assessment of the same in a real and proper perspective, a proper course of action available/open to the Applicants' in Law, is to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as against the Impugned Judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge. Looking at from any angle, the present Review Application filed by the Review Applicants' sans merits. The Review Application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Error Apparent on the Face of Record.
2. Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment.
3. Validity of Second Marriage.
4. Time Limit for Application for Compassionate Appointment.
5. Indigent Circumstances of the Family.
6. Legal Position of Review.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Error Apparent on the Face of Record:
The Applicants argued that the judgment dated 07.04.2016 suffered from an "Error Apparent on the Face of Record." They relied on various legal precedents to support their contention that a review can be entertained if an error apparent on the face of the record is found. However, the court held that an error must be self-evident and not require detailed examination or reasoning. The court concluded that the Applicants' arguments did not meet this criterion.

2. Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment:
The Applicants contended that the Respondent was not entitled to a compassionate appointment because the application was made nine years after the death of his father, which is beyond the permissible time limit. They also argued that compassionate appointments are not a legacy or inheritable right but are meant to address immediate indigent circumstances. The court noted that the Respondent's family was in indigent circumstances and had been made to believe that their application was pending, thus dismissing the Applicants' contention.

3. Validity of Second Marriage:
The Applicants argued that the Respondent's mother was the second wife of the deceased, making the Respondent ineligible for a compassionate appointment. However, the court found that the Respondent's father married his mother after the death of his first wife, making the second marriage valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also noted that children born out of void marriages are considered legitimate for all purposes, including succession.

4. Time Limit for Application for Compassionate Appointment:
The Applicants relied on Government Orders that stipulated a three-year time limit for filing applications for compassionate appointments. However, the court found that the Respondent had been pursuing the matter diligently and that the authorities had led the Respondent's family to believe that their application was under consideration. Therefore, the court held that the delay in filing the application did not disqualify the Respondent.

5. Indigent Circumstances of the Family:
The Applicants argued that the Respondent's family was not in indigent circumstances at the time of the application. However, the court found that the Respondent had produced a certificate from the Tahsildar stating that the family was in indigent circumstances. The court also noted that the Respondent's family had no income from any property and required the Respondent's assistance.

6. Legal Position of Review:
The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and is permissible only if there is a self-evident error. The court noted that new issues or facts not raised in the original proceedings or the appellate court cannot be entertained in a review application. The court found that the Applicants were attempting to introduce new evidence and issues that were not presented earlier, which is not permissible in a review.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the review application, stating that the Applicants had not demonstrated any self-evident error in the original judgment. The court held that the Respondent was entitled to a compassionate appointment and that the second marriage of the Respondent's father was valid. The court also found that the Respondent's family was in indigent circumstances and that the delay in filing the application did not disqualify the Respondent. The court advised the Applicants to seek a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court if they wished to challenge the judgment further.