REV.APPL/248/2026 of R Nithianandan Vs State Express Transport Corporation on 1 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) These Review Petitions have been filed to review the orders dated 20.08.2026 made in W.A.Nos. 1990 to 1994 of 2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would raise the ground that judgment of the Division Bench of this court, affirmed by the Supreme Court in a similar matter was not considered by this court and also that certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are to be made applicable the review petitioners and seeks the order to be reviewed. He also urged the court that other grounds raised also

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

deserve to be considered, since the order sought to be reviewed are not in consonance with the order of the co-ordinate bench passed in a similar matter, which created disparity among the homogeneous class of employees.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/ Transport Corporation would oppose by stating that this court has rightly considered and interpreted the scope of G.O. Ms. No. 330 dated 31.08.2018 in detail and pointed out that this court has granted liberty to the individual employees to approach competent authority in case of any error in fixation of pay. Hence, the present review applications deserve to be dismissed.

4. This Court is of the considered view that the scope of the review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., cannot be expanded for the purpose of re-adjudication of merits. The erroneous order in the opinion of the petitioners cannot be a ground to entertain the Review Petition. Scope of review is restricted only to the extent that in the event of establishing error apparent, which alone to be considered. In the present case, the petitioners have raised several grounds, which are all relating to merits of the case. The legal principles to be followed for entertaining the

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

Review Petition are considered by this Court in Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.662 of 2017, dated 20.12.2017. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “9. Further, the Supreme Court of India held that the review jurisdiction cannot be used as an Appellate Jurisdiction. The “mistake” or “error” must exist apparent on the face of the record to seek for review. As per Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the judgement may be opened to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the records. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It is impermissible for an erroneous decision to be “re-heard and corrected” and there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record.

10. The review application has a limited scope and cannot be allowed to be argued as an Appeal in disguise. In many cases across the country it is held that, where the grounds enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is imminent and in the absence of satisfying the ingredients, no review application would lie. The review application is not a process of re-hearing

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

of the whole matter, which had been earlier finally disposed of and the review application filed by the present applicant herein exactly attempts to do the same. Acceptability or rejection of the review application has to be decided only with reference to the grounds on which the review is permissible and not on the merits of the claim. The Supreme Court of India in the case reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 held that a review application is for a correction of mistake and not for substitution of views. A point which may be a ground for an appeal is certainly not a ground for review. Thus, an erroneous view of evidence or of law is no ground for a review, though, it may be a ground for an appeal. The grounds of review application presently filed by the applicant does not make out an evidence of error apparent on the face of the order of this Court.

11. The two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320, summarise the principles in respect of the maintainability of the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder. “Summary of the principles

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.

21. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of the applicant and find out whether a case has been made out for interference exercising review jurisdiction.”

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

5. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would submit that review can be entertained even on non consideration of judgments and facts. However, in the present case, the scope of fixation of pay has been elaborately dealt with as per G.O. Ms. No. 330 dated 31.08.2018, which amplifies about the eligibility and the multiplier factor to be adopted. The Court also took notice of the spinning wheel of precedents created based on wrong interpretation of the said G.O. and held that those need not be taken as prcedents as the exercise of fixation of pay and its correctness is to be done by competent authority and High court cannot interfere in those matters.

6. This Court has also granted liberty to the review petitioners to approach competent authority in case of any error in fixation of pay. There is no error apparent on record and hence, review of order would not arise at all in the present case. Further, the grounds raised relating to merits cannot be re-adjudicated and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Review Petitions. Thus, these Review Petitions are dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

To State Express Transport Corporation Rep by its Managinig Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002

REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. GD REV.APPL No. 248 of 2026 AND REV.APPL NO. 250 OF 2026 01-10-2026