The Madras High Court, comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice Shamim Ahmed, has held that a review petition cannot be utilized to re-argue a case on its merits or seek a rehearing under the guise of rectifying an error, dismissing a review application filed by the State of Tamil Nadu concerning pay scale benefits for daily wage workers. The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is strictly confined to correcting patent errors or mistakes apparent on the face of the record, rather than substituting a view or re-evaluating concluded adjudications.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a dispute involving twelve daily wage Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) workers engaged under various schemes in Thanjavur District (Kumbakonam WRD) by the Public Works Department (PWD), which was subsequently bifurcated into PWD and the Water Resources Department (WRD). The State Government had previously conducted statewide exercises through Expert Committees to scrutinize certification details of long-serving NMR workers. Following this, the government issued G.O. Ms. No. 233, Public Works Department, dated 06.12.2019, extending regularization and a minimum time scale pay of Rs. 18,500/- per month to 3,407 verified NMR workers on par with sweepers and other low-grade employees.
The private respondents—K. Kalamani and eleven others—were engaged as NMR workers starting from 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014, with several working continuously for over ten years. However, their names were omitted from G.O. Ms. No. 233. When the workers approached the PWD seeking pay parity under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, the 2nd Appellant rejected their request vide Order No. S4(1)/30584/2021 dated 10.04.2023.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the workers filed W.P. No. 27781 of 2022. By an order dated 31.01.2025, the Writ Court quashed the rejection order and directed the department to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 233 to the respondents. The State challenged this ruling in Writ Appeal No. 65 of 2026. On 20.01.2026, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that once NMR workers are engaged under department-envisaged schemes, they are to be construed as direct NMR workers under PWD/WRD, and directed compliance within two months. Seeking a review of this judgment dated 20.01.2026, the State filed Review Application No. 175 of 2026.
Arguments of the Parties
Special Government Pleader Mr. A.R. Suresh, appearing for the State Applicants, contended that although the respondents had been engaged continuously for several years, their engagement was not made directly by PWD/WRD but through contractors who disbursed their wages. Consequently, the State argued they were ineligible for benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 233. The State relied upon a Single Judge order in W.P. (MD) No. 8092 of 2020 dated 01.10.2020, where claims of NMR workers lacking proof of direct service certification were rejected.
Counsel Mr. L. Chandrakumar represented the respondent workers.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
The Bench observed that during the writ proceedings, the department had admitted that the respondents were engaged as NMRs during the relevant periods, and their continuous service was certified by departmental engineers. The Court noted that there was no direct evidence establishing that the respondents worked strictly on a contractual basis without direct departmental oversight. Distinguishing the Single Judge order in W.P. (MD) No. 8092 of 2020, the Bench pointed out that in that case, petitioners failed to establish evidence of 10 years of service, whereas in the present case, the continuity of service of all respondents was an undisputed factual record certified by the department.
Evaluating the statutory scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Court emphasized that a review application cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise or an opportunity to reopen concluded adjudications.
The Bench referred to several landmark Supreme Court precedents governing review jurisdiction:
In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1372), the Supreme Court observed:
“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”
In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979 (4) SCC 389), the Apex Court ruled:
“… there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.”
This principle was approved in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455), reiterating that review proceedings must strictly adhere to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
In Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others (1997 (8) SCC 715), the Supreme Court held that an error requiring a process of reasoning to be detected cannot be termed an error apparent on the face of the record.
In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai (AIR 2003 SC 2095), the Supreme Court noted:
“The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgement/order cannot be disturbed.”
The Court also cited Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 1650) and Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal ((2009) 4 SCC 665), reiterating that review power is meant to correct mistakes and not to substitute a view.
In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others (2013 (8) SCC 320), the Supreme Court summarized the principles:
“19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgement cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgement in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.”
The Court noted that the expression “any other sufficient reason” under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112) and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. (AIR 1954 SC 526) as well as Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013 (8) SCC 337), means a reason at least analogous to those specified in the rule.
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the grounds raised in the review application amounted to an attempt by the State to re-argue the identical pleas previously evaluated and rejected in both the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal. Finding no patent error or mistake apparent on the face of the record within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Court dismissed the Review Application as devoid of merits. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 22043 of 2026 was closed without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Kalamani and Others
Case No.: Review Application No. 175 of 2026
Bench: Justice S. M. Subramaniam, Justice Shamim Ahmed
Date: 12-08-2026
