The Calcutta High Court has dismissed review petitions filed by the State and a school authority seeking reconsideration of an earlier order directing release of retiral benefits to a retired Headmaster, holding that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to cure a party's failure to appear or place materials before the Court during the original hearing.

Justice Aniruddha Roy observed that the Court exercising review jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and that neither non-filing of an affidavit-in-opposition nor the respondents' absence at the final hearing could constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record."

The Court reiterated that the pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings does not, by itself, justify withholding retiral benefits where a Pension Payment Order (PPO) has already been issued in favour of the employee.

Background

The writ petitioner had served as Headmaster of Shyamnagar Kanti Chandra High School since 1987 and retired on October 31, 2019. Before retirement, he submitted all documents required for processing his pension. The School forwarded his pension papers and provident fund documents to the competent authorities, following which a Pension Payment Order was issued on November 7, 2019. However, except for provident fund, his retiral dues remained unpaid, compelling him to approach the High Court.

While deciding the writ petition in February 2024, the Court had directed the authorities to release all retiral benefits within eight weeks. The State and the School thereafter sought review of that judgment.

Review Not A Substitute For Appeal

The review applicants contended that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the retired Headmaster after obtaining the State Government's approval under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018, and that a criminal case was also pending. They argued these materials could not be considered earlier because the affidavit-in-opposition had inadvertently not been brought on record and the respondents remained unrepresented during the writ hearing.

Rejecting these submissions, Justice Roy held that none of the recognised grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure were made out.

The Court observed that the respondents had adequate notice of the proceedings but chose not to contest the writ petition. The absence of their affidavit or representation could not subsequently be projected as an error in the judgment itself.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, and Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is confined to correcting patent errors apparent on the face of the record or considering genuinely new evidence that could not have been produced despite due diligence. It cannot be used to seek a rehearing on merits or substitute an appeal.

Retiral Benefits Cannot Be Withheld

Dismissing both review petitions, the Court reaffirmed its earlier directions requiring the authorities to release all retiral benefits covered by the Pension Payment Order within eight weeks.

At the same time, the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings, leaving the authorities free to continue those proceedings in accordance with law. It also reserved liberty to take appropriate action if the petitioner is ultimately found guilty.

However, the Court made it clear that the pendency of those proceedings could not be cited as a ground to deny or delay payment of retiral benefits already directed to be released.

"The pendency of the disciplinary proceeding or the criminal proceeding shall not operate as a bar to release the payment in favour of the petitioner...," the Court held.

Case: The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas v. Alok Kumar Mallick & Ors. (RVW 100 of 2024 with connected matters)

Click here to read order