RP/84/2026 of THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS Vs SRI P. JUNJAPPA on 3 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for petitioners/State and learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for respondent. Perused the entire review petition papers.

2. The above review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to review order dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.No.6238/2020, whereunder, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of

HC-KAR

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. M.L.KESARI AND OTHER1 and other applicable judgments with an observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits including arrears of pay as per the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob in addition to the grounds raised in the review petition submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wrongly applied the ratio of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS2 and M.L.KESARI (supra) to the facts of the present case and as such, the order needs to be reviewed. Further, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the respondent joined as a daily wager on 10.01.1983 and subsequently he was granted benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012. He attained the age of superannuation and on his superannuation, he was granted ex-gratia of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, he submits 1 (2010) 9 SCC 247 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1

HC-KAR

that the respondent would not be entitled for regularization. Hence, he would pray for review of the order dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.No.6238/2020.

4. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for respondent would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. As such, review petition is liable to be rejected. Further, learned counsel would submit that wrong application of the judgment would not be a ground to review. Further, he would submit that the grounds raised by the petitioners-State Government are not the grounds for review and review petition cannot be treated as an appeal to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners-State. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the review petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire review petition papers, we do not find any error on the face of the record to review order dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.No.6238/2020.

HC-KAR

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS. STATE TAX OFFICER (1) AND ANOTHER3 has held that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. Under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to re- agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is also held that even an erroneous decision cannot be re-heard or corrected under the review jurisdiction. The main contention of the learned Additional Advocate General for petitioners-State is that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court applied UMADEVI (supra) and M.L.KESARI (supra) wrongly to the facts of the present case. A wrong or erroneous application of a judgment cannot be a ground to review an order. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the face of it, it cannot be said that UMADEVI (supra) and M.L.KESARI (supra) are wrongly applied.

3 (2024) 2 SCC 362

HC-KAR

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL (supra) at paragraph 10 has held as follows:

“10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. [Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25 : AIR 1965 SC 845]”

8. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to review order dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.No.6328/2020. Accordingly, review petition stands rejected.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

NC CT:bms