Orissa High Court
Rule 1 Of The Civil Procedure Code vs State Of Orissa And Another .... ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi, G. Satapathy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.215 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Section 114 read with Order 41
Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908)
Syed Mahtab Jamal and others .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Orissa and another .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in this case throughHybrid Arrangement Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party(s) : Ms. G. Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING:-08.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -08.08.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. This RVWPET hasbeen filed under Section 114 read with Order 41 Rule 1of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908(hereinafter referred to as "the C.P.C." for brevity) by the Petitioners to review the common judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.2222 of 2018 and 32223 of 2020.
2. The Petitioners further seek a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to refixthe equalization of pay i.e. Rs.4000-6000/- instead ofRs.3050-4590/- in their favour in view ofRules 45 and 36 of Page 1 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 Orissa Service Code. Further keeping inview of office order of Home Department dated 16.02.1049 (Annexure-13of the Writ Petition) for having the concept of equalizing the paybetween the High Court establishment and State Secretariat.
3. The ordering potion of the common judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.2222 of 2018 and 32223 of 2020by the Division Bench of this Court is extracted as under:
"13.From analysis of the facts involved in thewrit petitions and applying the principle of Law aswell as the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work",this Court, however, does not find any acceptablereasoning to extend the relief of equalization of payto the petitioners against the pay attached to non-existencepost and, thereby, the refusal of therepresentation of the petitioners by High Court ofOrissa in this situation appears to be not contrary tolaw or any principle and the claim of the petitioners inboth the writ petitions merit no consideration.
14. In the result, both the writ petitionsdeserve no consideration and are accordinglydismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, thereis no order as to costs"
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
4. The facts culminating in the filing of the present Review Petition are that the Petitioners are serving as Senior Grade Typists or Junior Grade Typists/Data Entry Operators in the establishment of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. They had sought a direction to the Opposite Parties to revise their pay scale, bringing it at par with that of their counterparts in the State Secretariat, with effect from the date of their initial appointment.
Page 2 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53
5. The Petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Grade Typists/Data Entry Operators at different stages in the years 2004, 2012, and 2015. At the time of these appointments, the Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter "the Rules, 1963") were in force. These Rules were subsequently amended in 2012 and 2015. Pursuant to the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter "the Rules, 2012"), the minimum qualification for the post of Junior Grade Typist/Data Entry Operator was revised from +2 with computer knowledge to Graduation. While the Rules, 2012 were still in force, a new set of Rules titled the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter "the Rules, 2015") came into effect. Under these Rules, sixteen categories of posts were classified as Group-C, with the post of Junior Grade Typist/Data Entry Operator placed at Serial No. 58. The promotional avenue for the said post was to Senior Grade Typist, which was placed at Serial No. 46 in the classification.
6. The Petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Grade Typists/Data Entry Operators at different stages in the years 2004, 2012, and 2015. At the time of these appointments, the Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter "the Rules, 1963") were in force. These Rules were subsequently amended in 2012 and 2015. Pursuant to the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter "the Rules, 2012"), the minimum qualification for the post of Junior Grade Typist/Data Entry Operator was revised Page 3 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 from +2 with computer knowledge to Graduation. While the Rules, 2012 were still in force, a new set of Rules titled the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter "the Rules, 2015") came into effect. Under these Rules, sixteen categories of posts were classified as Group-C, with the post of Junior Grade Typist/Data Entry Operator placed at Serial No. 58. The promotional avenue for the said post was to Senior Grade Typist, which was placed at Serial No. 46 in the classification.
7. This Court, however, dismissed the aforementioned writ petitions by a common judgment dated 13.05.2024, and recorded the following finding in paragraph 13 of the judgment:
"From analysis of the facts involved in the writ petitions and applying the principle of Law as well as the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", this Court, however, does not find any acceptable reasoning to extend the relief of equalization of pay to the petitioners against the pay attached to non-existence post and, thereby, the refusal of the representation of the petitioners by High Court of Orissa in this situation appears to be not contrary to law or any principle and the claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions merit no consideration."
8. Hence, the present Review Petition has been filed. II. PETITIONERS'SUBMISSIONS:
9. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(a) That the present case involves a claim for equalization of pay, based on the communication of the Home Department vide D.O. No. 2828 Page 4 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 dated 16.02.1949, addressed to the then Registrar of the Orissa High Court, enclosed as Annexure-13 of the Rejoinder. It was clearly stated therein that:
"Government have allowed the High Court employees the same scale of pay as are admissible to employees of corresponding ranks in the Secretariat which is the highest official in the province on the Executive side."
(b) The Review Petitioners are serving as Data Entry Operators/Junior Grade Typists in the establishment of this Hon'ble Court. Their counterparts in the State Secretariat are designated as "Data Processing Assistants." The nature of duties and status of both categories of employees are substantially the same, as acknowledged by the State Government and the Special Officer (Special Cell) of the Court's establishment vide communication dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition).
(c) The Petitioners were appointed vide office order dated 17.11.2004 issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, as evident from Annexure-2 series of the Writ Petition. At the time of their appointment, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-, whereas the corresponding post of Data Processing Assistant in the State Secretariat was in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, as fixed by the Finance Department's office order dated 26.09.1998. The differential in salary is a modest sum of Rs. 950/- per month.
(d) Furthermore, as per the Home Department's Resolution dated 02.03.2015 (Annexure-7 of the Writ Petition), the posts of Data Page 5 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 Processing Assistant in the Finance Department were merged with the Odisha Secretariat Data Entry Operators' Service. This clearly indicates that equivalent posts of Data Entry Operators existed both in the High Court and in the State Secretariat establishments.
(e) The observations made in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment are contrary to the documents enclosed as Annexure-7 (at pages 44 and 46 of the Writ Petition), and such misreading constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. These documents from the Finance and Home Departments were not appropriately interpreted by the Court while redressing the Petitioners' grievance.
(f) In the impugned communication dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-12 of the Writ Petition), the Special Officer (Special Cell) of the High Court acknowledged that the employees of the Orissa High Court were at par with their counterparts in the State Secretariat. However, he erroneously concluded that the post of Data Processing Assistant did not exist in the Secretariat.
(g) This conclusion is directly contradicted by Annexure-7, wherein both the Finance Department and Home Department categorically acknowledged the existence of Data Processing Assistant posts in the State Secretariat since 1998, which were later merged in 2015 under the Odisha Secretariat Data Entry Operators (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008.
(h) Moreover, as per Rule 15 of the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015, the Registrar is required Page 6 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 to obtain the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in matters relating to policy decisions governing the service conditions of High Court staff. However, at the time of issuing the impugned communication dated 20.09.2017, the Special Officer (Special Cell) failed to obtain such approval. Since the Chief Justice is the final authority for framing service conditions of High Court employees, the procedural lapse vitiates the decision-making process.
(i) In light of the above submissions, the Petitioners humbly pray that the judgment dated 13.05.2024 be reviewed, and the observations made in paragraph 13 thereof be revisited and appropriately modified in light of the documents enclosed under Annexure-7 (Finance and Home Department communications dated 26.09.1998 and 02.03.2015, respectively). The Petitioners further seek a direction to grant pay equalization from the date of their initial appointment i.e., 17.11.2004.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
10. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of her contentions:
(a) Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., the High Court of Orissa, represented through the Registrar (Judicial), had filed counter affidavits in both writ petitions through the Special Officer (Special Cell). It was inter alia stated that, pursuant to the representations submitted by the employees (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petitions) regarding revision of pay scale and merger of the posts of Junior Grade Typist/Data Entry Operator with that of Senior Typist as "Data Processing Assistant"Page 7 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 (DPA), the matter was referred to the Government of Odisha in the Home Department for clarification. The Deputy Secretary to the Government was specifically requested to confirm whether any post of DPA existed in the cadre of Typist/DEO in the State Government and, if so, to provide the applicable rules, pay scale, and service conditions. In response, the Under Secretary to the Government of Odisha in the Home Department clarified that no such post of Data Processing Assistant existed in the State Secretariat and conveyed his views through Annexure-A/2.
(b) It was further stated that although there existed a separate cadre of Typists in the High Court, in the year 1999, three posts of Data Entry Operators were created for the Computer Centre of the Orissa High Court, among other posts. However, since these three posts were non-
caderized, they were subsequently merged into the cadre of Typists. These positions, along with newly created posts of Junior Grade Typist, were filled up by candidates having +2 qualification with knowledge of Data Entry Operation, in accordance with the prevailing recruitment procedure. The individuals so appointed were designated as Typist/DEO to facilitate their promotional prospects to the post of Senior Grade Typist. The promotional post of Senior Grade Typist is, in fact, on the same pay scale as that of employees in the State Secretariat.
(c) Learned counsel further submitted that the posts of Junior Grade Typist/DEO and Junior Assistant belong to entirely separate cadres, Page 8 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 having distinct duties and responsibilities. Consequently, the Petitioners' claim for parity with the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO), a designation that came into existence following the merger of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant, is wholly untenable and unsustainable.
(d) It was also contended that, in the absence of any post in the Secretariat cadre corresponding to DPA--as clarified under Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No. 2--the Petitioners' claim for equalization of pay with their alleged counterparts in the State Secretariat has no legal or factual basis and, therefore, deserves no consideration.
(e) In light of the above facts and the material available on record, and since the Division Bench of this Court has already adjudicated upon the issues raised and rendered a reasoned judgment, it was submitted that the present Review Petition is not maintainable in the absence of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Review Petition filed by the Petitioners is liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
11. We have gone through the records and heard learned counsels for the parties.
12. At the outset, it is well settled that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is extremely limited. A court may exercise review jurisdiction only on discovery of new and Page 9 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. It is not open to re-argue matters or to correct an alleged erroneous decision on merits. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Ors.1emphatically observed as follows:
"A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule."
13. The Court further held that any attempt to re-open and rehear the case on the same issues would amount to an abuse of the review remedy. Likewise, in Anirbam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma2, the Supreme Court underscored the definitive limits of review power; while a court may correct a glaring error or consider new evidence that was genuinely not available earlier, 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. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1909 there is 1 AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 8.2
(1979) 4 SCC 389 Page 10 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 nothing in Article 226 of the Constitutence preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which iuheram in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of 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 power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court."
14. In short, an error that is not self-evident and requires examination or argument cannot be called apparent on the face of the recordso as to justify review.These principles will guide the present inquiry. We must first determine whether the Petitioners have shown any manifest error or other permissible ground for review of the judgment dated 13.05.2024. Only if such threshold is met, can the Court proceed to re- examine the merits; otherwise, the attempted re-argument on pay parity is impermissible at the review stage.
15. Applying the above yardstick, we find no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. The core grievance of the Petitioners is that the Division Bench, in paragraph 13 of its judgment, proceeded on a factually mistaken premise that the post of "Data Page 11 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 Processing Assistant" (the claimed comparator in the State Secretariat) was a non-existent post, and thus declined the prayer for equalization of pay. The Petitioners argue that this constitutes an obvious error since documents on record show the Data Processing Assistant (DPA) posts did exist in the Secretariat at least until their merger in 2015. They contend the Bench overlooked or misinterpreted this material evidence, as well as a 1949 policy letter assuring pay parity between High Court staff and corresponding Secretariat staff. However, having scrutinized the case record and the prior judgment, we are not persuaded that any palpable mistake leaps out which would warrant a review. The so-called oversight regarding existence of DPA posts is not a clear-cut clerical or arithmetical error, but at best a matter of factual interpretation on which the Petitioners seek to re-open the findings. The Division Bench was aware of the Petitioners' claim for parity with Secretariat staff; it explicitly considered the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" but found no acceptable basis to grant relief against a post that, in the Bench's view, did not exist in the Secretariat's cadre structure.
16. Even if one might debate whether the Secretariat had an analogous post (DPA/DEO) at some point, resolving that would require delving into the evidence and the nuances of governmental reorganization, the 2015 merger of posts, etc. Such an inquiry goes beyond the narrow scope of review, as it does not involve an obvious error staring us in the face, but rather a potential error of judgment requiring analysis. Page 12 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53
17. In fact, the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar (Supra) has cautioned that a purported error which has to be fished out and searched from the record, especially by engaging in competing interpretations of documents, is not an error apparent on the face of the record. Here, the supposed mistake regarding the status of DPA posts is not self- evident; indeed, the Opposite Parties maintain that no such separate post existed in the relevant period, and at any rate the Secretariat's cadre and the High Court's cadre are different. Determining the correctness of that position would effectively entail a re-appraisal of the factual matrix and the law, which is beyond review jurisdiction.
18. Crucially, the Petitioners do not point to any new evidence that could not be produced earlier; the 1949 letter and the 1998/2015 government orders they rely on were already part of the writ record. There is also no patent error of law in the judgment, the Division Bench applied the correct legal test (equal pay for equal work) but found it not satisfied on facts.The Petitioners essentially urge that the earlier Bench erred in evaluation and should have reached a different conclusion. This, in substance, is an invitation for the Court to sit in appeal over its own judgment, which is impermissible.
19. As the Supreme Court observed in Aribam Tuleshwar(Supra), a review cannot be claimed on the mere ground that the decision was wrong on merits; the proper remedy in such a case is an appeal, not review.Once a court has adjudicated upon a matter, reopening the merits on the ground that the judgment was erroneous would trench Page 13 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53 upon appellate jurisdiction and violate the finality of judgments.We are mindful that the Petitioners feel aggrieved, but dissatisfaction with the outcome is not a valid ground for review. Unless a material fact or legal principle was plainly overlooked or a patent wrong has crept in, the judgment cannot be disturbed. In the present case, the so-called omissions pointed out by the Petitioners (such as not discussing the Home Department's 1949 letter, or the Special Officer's failure to consult the Chief Justice, etc.) do not rise to the level of manifest errors apparent on the record. At best, they are aspects which were implicitly considered and rejected, or minor procedural grievances that do not vitiate the decision. Notably, the requirement of Chief Justice's approval under Rule 15 of the 2015 Staff Rules, even if assumed relevant, was a matter raised in the writ proceedings; an adverse finding on it, even if arguably mistaken, is an error of judgment not open to correction by review.
20. In sum, the Petitioners have not demonstrated any jurisdictional error, patent misreading of the record, or other self-evident mistake that strikes at the heart of the earlier judgment. What they seek is essentially a re-hearing on the issue of pay parity with a hope for a different result. That is beyond the purview of review.This Court cannot assume appellate prerogative in the guise of review and convert itself into a forum for second opinion on the same facts and law. On this ground alone, the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Page 14 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 19:49:53
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Review Petition lacks merit. The Petitioners have not demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record that would justify reopening the concluded judgment of the Division Bench. The attempt to re-argue the issue of pay scale parity is outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
22. The findings in the judgment dated 13.05.2024 are well-supported by reasoning that is consistent with precedent and the materials on record. There is no miscarriage of justice or material oversight that compels the Court to intervene.
23. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge G. Satapathy, J.I agree.
(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 8th August, 2025// Page 15 of 15