Can You File Review Petition If Another Case Later Favors You? Supreme Court Says No

The order under appeal, dated September 9, 2024, arose out of an intra-court appeal order of September 06, 2016. This 2016 order had come to be reviewed by the high court by exercising its power under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), leading to the impugned order which recalled the 2016 order and restored the appeal for fresh hearing.

The bench of Justices Kumar and Anjaria, after hearing the counsel for the parties, stated, "We are in complete agreement with the proposition of the counsel for the appellants which is to the effect that review is impermissible on the basis of subsequent judgment having been rendered in favour of review petitioner in another case".

The bench noted that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 clearly prohibited the filing of a review petition due to a subsequent judgment. It relied on the decision in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (2024), which held that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger bench of this court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment or order under review was based.

The case involved the respondent, M Michael Raj, who joined the bank in 1978 and was promoted as an officer in March 1988. About two years later, he requested to be reverted to the clerical cadre, and the bank acceded to his request, reverting him to the post of Clerk in 1990. He was granted an increment in 1991, which was later recovered. In 2011, Mr. Raj was informed that he was not eligible for a stagnation increment as per the Bipartite Settlement. His representation was turned down, and subsequent representations also failed to yield any result.

The respondent then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the high court, but the single judge bench dismissed it, taking note of the 5th bipartite agreement of April 10, 1989. The agreement stipulated that a stagnation increment could only be refused to an employee who, after the commencement of the settlement and after being offered or selected for promotion, refuses to accept such promotion. The single judge bench observed that the petitioner did not fall under the said circular since he accepted the promotion and there was no question of granting any relief.

Taking note of the 6th bipartite settlement, which came into force on February 14, 1995, the single judge bench was of the view that Mr. Raj did not opt for reversion within one year, but after two years, and as per Clause 5(c)(i) of this agreement, he was not entitled to the grant of stagnation increment. The single judge bench's order was then challenged in a writ appeal, which was also dismissed.

The apex court noted, "The petitioner (respondent herein), having gone into deep sleep for eight long years, suddenly woke up from his slumber to file a review petition".

It observed that the subsequent law laid down in the case of another employee enlightened the petitioner to file the review petition. The bench unequivocally stated, "In fact, the review petition itself is not maintainable inasmuch as Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is a complete answer to the same. It clearly prohibits filing of review petition due to subsequent judgment... On this short ground alone, the present appeal succeeds".

The bench held that the review not being maintainable, it ought not to have been entertained, and further observed that even on merits the respondent would not be entitled to the stagnation increment.

In this regard, court pointed out that the two earlier bipartite agreements of 1983 and 1989 were superseded by the 6th bipartite agreement in 1995, and under Clause 5(c)(ii), the employee would not be eligible for stagnation increment if he, after accepting the promotion, seeks and is granted reversion after one year from the date of promotion. Court pointed out that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner would squarely fall within the expression of this clause.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of September 09, 2024 passed by the hgh court, dismissing the review petition.