The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on civil procedure, has held that a review petition is not maintainable if it is based on a subsequent decision of a superior court that has reversed or modified the law. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by Canara Bank, setting aside a Madras High Court order that had condoned an eight-year delay and agreed to review its own judgment.
The Court concluded that the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition, as the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, explicitly prohibits such a course of action.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a dispute over a “stagnation increment” for a Canara Bank employee, M Michael Raj. The employee, who joined the bank in 1978, was promoted to an officer position in March 1988. After approximately two years, he requested and was granted a reversion to the clerical cadre on March 26, 1990.
In 2011, the bank informed him that he was not eligible for the stagnation increment as per the governing Bipartite Settlement. His representations to the bank were rejected. Aggrieved, Mr. Raj filed a writ petition before the High Court.
A learned Single Judge dismissed his petition, observing that under the 5th bipartite agreement, the employee did not qualify for the relief. The judge also noted that under the subsequent 6th bipartite settlement, which came into force on February 14, 1995, an employee was ineligible for the increment if they sought reversion more than one year after their promotion. Since the employee had reverted after two years, his claim was denied. An intra-court writ appeal filed by the employee against this decision was also dismissed on September 6, 2016.
Eight years later, the employee filed a petition to review the 2016 dismissal order. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in its order dated September 9, 2024, condoned the delay and recalled its earlier order, restoring the appeal for a fresh hearing. This order was challenged by Canara Bank before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court began its analysis by stating its “complete agreement” with the proposition advanced by Canara Bank’s counsel: “review is impermissible on the basis of subsequent judgment having been rendered in favour of review petitioner in another case.”
The bench observed that the employee was prompted to file the review petition after a similar employee was granted relief in a different case. The Court noted, “The petitioner having gone into deep sleep for eight long years suddenly woke up from his slumber to file a review petition, obviously, as could be seen from recitals or the averments extracted in the impugned order whereby similar employee had been extended the benefit.”
The Court held that the review petition was not maintainable at all. It pointed directly to the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which states:
“Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”
The bench declared that “on this short ground alone, the present appeal succeeds.” To support its position, the Court cited its recent judgments in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 315, where it was held:
“We, thus, hold 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/order under review was based.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court also examined the merits of the employee’s original claim. It found that under Clause 5(c)(ii) of the 6th bipartite agreement dated February 14, 1995, an employee would be ineligible for a stagnation increment if, after accepting a promotion, they seek and are granted reversion after one year from the date of promotion. The Court stated, “It is undisputed fact that the petitioner would squarely fall within the expression of this clause and even on merits the petitioner would not be entitled for stagnation increment.”
For these cumulative reasons, the Supreme Court allowed Canara Bank’s appeal. The order of the Madras High Court dated September 9, 2024, was set aside, and the review petition filed by the employee was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
