2015 (2) TMI 1409 - HC - Indian Laws

Scope of review - Disbursement of all retirement benefits that are due to him on the date of attaining his superannuation with interest - HELD THAT - From the records, it is seen that the review applicant did not contest the claim of the first respondent on merits in the writ petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the review applicant admitted the contentions of the first respondent. Based on the said admission only, an order was passed in the writ petition. The review application and the writ appeal filed by the review applicant herein were dismissed as not maintainable - It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-hearing on merits. There are no error apparent on the face of record in the judgment, passed by this Court. Accordingly, the Review Application fails - the Review Application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment on retirement benefits and liability dispute.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a review application seeking to reconsider a previous judgment related to retirement benefits and liability dispute. The first respondent, a former Secretary of the review applicant Society, filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to receive his retirement benefits. The review applicant disputed the liability amount but later admitted to the first respondent's contentions during the hearing. The Single Judge quashed the charge memo and directed the review applicant to settle the retirement benefits. Subsequent review applications and appeals by the review applicant were dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of grounds for review. The scope of review was discussed, emphasizing that it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

The judgment refers to legal precedents highlighting the limited scope of review and the need for an error to be rectified for a review application to be considered. The Court cited the Hon'ble Apex Court's stance on review applications not being an appeal in disguise and the importance of rectifying errors leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Division Bench also referenced a previous judgment on the scope of judicial review, emphasizing that erroneous findings or improper considerations are not grounds for review. The Court reiterated that a review does not entitle a party to a re-hearing of the issue unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Ultimately, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review and dismissed the Review Application. The judgment clarified that the dismissal of the review application would not hinder the recovery of any amount due from the first respondent as per the order passed in the surcharge proceedings. It also allowed the review applicant to implement the surcharge proceedings' order as per the law, if advised.