Can't Punish Employee For Delay Over Employer's Inaction: MP High Court Rejects State's Review Against Order Granting Pay-Hike Under Scheme

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is narrow in scope and cannot be exercised as a substitute for an appeal.For context, the provision enables the court to review its own judgment only in limited circumstances, such as discovery of new and important evidence, a patent error apparent on the face of the record or other analogous grounds warranting reconsideration.Emphasising that review jurisdiction is maintainable only in cases involving glaring omission or manifest error, the bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai dismissed a review petition filed by the State challenging an earlier order directing the grant of Kramonnati (time-bound pay scale) benefits to a retired employee. The court said that the State's contention over delay by employee in moving the court does not apply, as the "fault of not granting Kramonnati/time-bound pay scale at the relevant time in 2003 was fundamentally the fault of the respondent-department (the review petitioners herein)". "An employee cannot be penalized or non-suited on the ground of delay when the default and inaction lie squarely upon the employer in failing to extend statutory and policy benefits rightfully due to the employee," the court said. The bench directed:"The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is highly circumscribed. A review proceeding cannot be equated with an appeal, and it is maintainable only if there is a glaring omission or a patent error apparent on the face of the record".The respondent, Suresh Chandra Ojha, was appointed in 1993 under a work-charged/contingency paid establishment of the State Government and retired on September 30, 2022. In 2025, he approached the High Court seeking a time-bound pay scale allegedly due from 2003, along with consequential arrears and pensionary benefits. The respondent contended that work-charged and contingency-paid employees formed a common class and were entitled to the benefits of the scheme. The State opposed the writ petition, primarily on the grounds of delay and laches and on the alleged non-applicability of the scheme. However, the court allowed the writ petition and passed the impugned order. Seeking review of the judgment, the State argued that the court had failed to consider the issue of delay, which, according to it, went to the root of the maintainability of the writ petition. The State contended that respondent had sought benefits alleged due from 2003 only in 2025, resulting in an unexplained delay of more than two decades. It was argued that a person who sleeps over his rights cannot claim equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and that entertaining such stale claims imposes a significant financial burden on the public exchequer. Rejecting the review petition, the court examined the scope of review jurisdiction and observed that review proceedings cannot be treated as a rehearing of the original matter and that an alleged error must be apparent on the face of the record. The bench noted that review jurisdiction is not intended to correct every perceived error or to provide a forum for re-arguing issues already decided. Addressing the State's principal contention regarding delay, the court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated. The court observed that the failure to grant Kramonnati benefits at the relevant time was attributable to the department itself. The bench held:"An employee cannot be penalized or non-suited on the ground of delay when the default and inaction lie squarely upon the employer in failing to extend statutory and policy benefits rightfully due to the employee". Accordingly, the court dismissed the review petition and upheld the impugned order. The bench further directed authorities to grant time-bound pay scale benefits and consequential benefits to the respondent. Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v Suresh Chandra Ojha, R.P. No.1015/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 196For State: Government Advocate Pranjali YajurvediClick here to read/download the Order

Can't Punish Employee For Delay Over Employer's Inaction: MP High Court Rejects State's Review Against Order Granting Pay-Hike Under Scheme

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Can't Punish Employee For Delay Over Employer's Inaction: MP High Court Rejects State's Review Against Order Granting Pay-Hike Under Scheme

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers