Review can't be treated as appeal in disguise: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, explaining that a judgment cannot be reviewed unless a patent error in the ruling is demonstrated [Bijender Kumar Gaur Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.].

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while dismissing a review petition filed by a retired principal of a school run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

“Review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and unless an error apparent on the face of record is shown, the order under challenge cannot be altered," the Court said.

The petitioner before the Court, Bijender Gaur, had retired in 2007 from the post of principal of a MCD-run government school.

He moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking interest on delayed salary and retiral dues. The CAT declined to grant the interest amount.

The tribunal ruled that Gaur himself was responsible for the delay in payment, owing to a delay on his part in signing pay bills and furnishing bank details.

The tribunal also rejected Gaur's plea to review the correctness of this decision.

Gaur then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the CAT's decision.

The Court held that the CAT correctly exercised its review jurisdiction.

"The Petitioner has not pointed out any patent error, clerical mistake, or omission apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 and thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Review Application," it said.

The Court observed from CAT’s order that the delays complained of by Gaur were substantially attributable to his own conduct.

Further, even if the delay were due to any administrative lapses on the part of MCD, it would still not be a sufficient reason for the Court to interfere with CAT’s order in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

The Court further observed that the tribunal had allowed part of Gaur's plea for the payment of benefits for service on election duty, along with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from 1998 to 2017.

It noted that in an earlier round of litigation with respect to salary components for the period 1975–2007, the CAT directed the disbursement of legitimate salary claims, save for the interest component. This order was also enforced. While so, the Court held that Gaur could not, by a subsequent round of litigation, seek interest on such payments.

The Court held that when a judicial order is silent on granting the ancillary reliefs (such as interest) sought, it is deemed to have been rejected. Thereafter, the litigant cannot seek to reopen the matter by filing more petitions.

“The said order attained finality and was acted upon. Once a competent judicial forum, seized of a specific prayer for interest, grants only the principal relief and remains silent as to interest, the claim for such ancillary relief must be treated as having been declined and the delay on part of the Respondents, if any, would deem to have been condoned. The Petitioner cannot, in a subsequent round of litigation, seek to reopen or re-agitate a claim which stood concluded in the earlier proceedings,” the Court stated.

The Court concluded that Gaur failed to demonstrate how CAT’s decision was perverse. The Court added that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view over the tribunal’s view merely because another view may be possible.

With these observations, the Court proceeded to uphold the tribunal’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.

Standing Counsel Akhil Mittal, with advocates Riddhi Jain and Shayna Das Pattanayak appeared for the MCD. 

[Read judgment]