Review.Pet./83/2026 of THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. Vs DHANAPATI LAHAKAR AND 6 ORS. on 21 May 2026

ORDER

22-05-2026 (AD Choudhury, J)

1. The present review petition has been filed, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2025 passed in WP(C) 1707/2021, whereby this court held the writ petitioners entitled to the benefit of temporary status and consequential consideration for regulation under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989.

2. The principal grounds urged in the review petition are that, the writ petitioners had not completed 240 days of engagement in any calendar year; that the several documents relied upon by them were unsigned or reflected low attendance; that the petitioners were merely daily wage workers engaged without proper selection process; and that this court failed to consider judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 7707-7708 of 2021 dealing with similar issue. It is further contended that these aspects constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and upon perusal of the materials available on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to entertain the present review petition.

4. At the outset, it should be noted that the scope of the review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review proceeding cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise. Unless there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, despite due diligence or any other analogous ground, the judgment already rendered cannot be reopened merely because another view is possible.

5. In the judgment under review, this court had elaborately considered the entire factual matrix, including the nature of the engagement of the writ petitioners, the contemporaneous document relied upon by them, including the report of the Verification committee, affirming their continuation, the stand of the employer regarding non-availability of original records and the long continuance of the petitioners in service.

6. This court had specifically recorded that the respondent employer never disputed the factum of the writ petitioners' engagement and continuation as casual labourers, and also failed to produce records conclusively disapproving their claim regarding completion of qualifying service.

7. The findings rendered in the judgment under review dated 10-12-2025 were thus based on an appreciation of pleadings and materials already available before the court.

8. The present review petition substantially seeks a re-appreciation of those very materials and invites this court to take a different view on the merits, which is impermissible within the narrow confines of review jurisdiction.

9. The contention that certain documents reflected low attendance or that petitioners had not completed 240 days in a calendar year was also a matter intrinsically connected with the merits of the writ petition itself. Such issues were considered while rendering the judgment under review. Merely because the review petitioners seek to place greater emphasis on certain materials cannot furnish a ground for review.

10. So far as the reliance placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7707-7708 of 2021 is concerned, non-reference to a particular precedent would not ipso facto constitute an error apparent on the face of the record unless it is shown that the judgment under review is rendered in ignorance of a binding proposition directly governing the issue and leading to manifest miscarriage of justice.

11. There is a marked distinction between the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 7707-7708 of 2021, wherein the specific finding was recorded by the Hon’ble Apex court that the Verification Committee concluded that the casual employees therein did not complete the required service period, whereas, in the present case, we have specifically recorded that the Verification Committee affirmed the continuation of the engagement of the petitioners.

12. Thus, in the present case, the conclusions arrived at by this court were rendered in the peculiar factual backdrop noticed in detail in the judgment itself, particularly, the admitted continuation of the writ petitioners in service for decades, findings of the Verification Committee affirming such fact, and the failure of the employer to produce foundational records despite being the custodian thereof. Therefore, this contention also does not persuade this court to invoke review jurisdiction.

13. It is further noticeable that the review petitioners were essentially attempting to re-argue the writ petition on merit by contending that documents ought not to have been relied upon, that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, 1989. Such grounds are certainly not grounds for review.

14. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and should not require a long drawn process of reasoning. The grounds urged in the present review petition would unmistakably require re-hearing of the matter on merit, which is wholly beyond the permissible scope of review.

15. Accordingly, finding no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under review jurisdiction, the present review petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant