In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld its earlier judgment, dismissing a review petition filed by Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb, a retired employee of the Sher-i-Kashmir International Conference Centre (SKICC). The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohammad Yousuf Wani, emphasized that the omission to discuss statutory provisions irrelevant to the case does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, thereby reaffirming the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The case stemmed from Naqeeb's claim for pensionary benefits following his retirement from SKICC, an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. Initially, the High Court had ruled that Naqeeb was not entitled to a pension, as he was neither appointed to a pensionable post under the Government nor covered by the pension scheme that came into effect in SKICC in 2014, four years after his retirement in May 2010.
Aggrieved by this decision, Naqeeb filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), contending that the earlier judgment had failed to consider certain Government instructions appended to Articles 1-A, 185-D(iv), and 177 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (CSR), 1956. He argued that these provisions were pertinent to his case and that their omission constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
Upon reviewing the petition, the Court meticulously examined the grounds raised for review. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, authoring the judgment for the Bench, clarified that the jurisdiction of review is confined to correcting grave and manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of the case. The Court noted that the instructions referred to under Article 1-A of the CSR were not applicable to Naqeeb's case, as he was never appointed to any civil post under the Government. Furthermore, the provisions under Articles 185-D(iv) and 177, dealing with pension options for government servants transferred to autonomous bodies and qualifying service respectively, were deemed irrelevant to Naqeeb's situation.
The Court emphasized that the failure to discuss statutory provisions that have no bearing on the dispute at hand does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. This assertion aligns with established legal principles that review jurisdiction is not an avenue for rehearing or reappreciation of the case but is limited to addressing glaring errors that are evident without detailed examination.
In dismissing the review petition, the Court reiterated that the scope of review is narrowly defined and cannot be expanded to encompass re-examination of the case's merits. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of finality and judicial discipline, ensuring that review proceedings are not misused as a substitute for appeal.
This decision underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of its judgments and reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal standards in review petitions. It also highlights the necessity for litigants to present compelling and relevant grounds when seeking a review of a judgment, as the threshold for such proceedings is set high to prevent abuse of the process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.