Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur & 2 Others vs Dr. Y. Mohendro Singh on 21 August, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.22 17:03:42 +05'30'
Sl. No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review. Pet. No. 14 of 2023
Ref:- WA No. 39 of 2017
The State of Manipur & 2 Others
Petitioners
Vs.
Dr. Y. Mohendro Singh
Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
ORDER
(K. Somashekar, C.J. & A. Bimol Singh, J )
21.08.2025
[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Athouba, learned GA appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The present review petition has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 24.07.2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No. 39 of 2017.
[3] The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the direction
given by the coordinate Bench at paragraph No. 12 of the judgment wherein
it has been directed to give to the writ petitioner/respondent herein the
higher scale of pay for the period he performed duties as Principal on
officiating basis and who retired on 29.02.1996.
Page | 1
[4] Mr. Kh. Athouba, learned GA submitted that neither the order
dated 28.03.1990 issued by the Secretary, Education Department nor the
proceeding of the Screening Committee meeting held on 24.09.1994 for
placement of Principals in the Selection Grade of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/-
had been challenged by the writ petitioner. It has been submitted that in
the said proceeding a recommendation has been made to the effect that
the placement of Principal who are on officiating basis though they have
fulfilled the criteria for placement of the Selection Grade of Pay i.e. Rs. 4500-
7300/- may be done after regularization of their appointment.
[5] The learned GA accordingly submitted that as the writ
petitioner has not challenged either the aforesaid order or the proceeding
of the aforesaid Screening Committee, the direction given by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.
[6] We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed
in the said writ appeal and at paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it has been
clearly observed that as the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been
appointed as a Principal on officiating basis, he is entitled to get the higher
scale of pay as he had performed his duties as Principal.
[7] The learned Government Advocate has failed to address the
point as to the statutory provision under FR 49 of the FR & SR wherein it is
provided that an incumbent who is appointed on the officiating basis is
entitled to get the scale of pay of the post.
Page | 2
[8] In our considered view, since there is a statutory provision
under FR 49 of the FR & SR providing for grant of higher scale of pay to an
employee who has been appointed on officiating basis, we do not find any
error in the finding given by the coordinate Bench under paragraph 9 of the
impugned order and subsequent direction given thereto for granting the
higher scale of pay of Principal to the writ petitioner as he was appointed
on officiating basis and discharging the functions and duties of the Principal.
[9] It may also be noted that since the scope of review is very
limited, we are not inclined to re-hear the matter on merit as proposed by
the learned GA. Moreover, as we do not find any error in the findings and
directions given by the coordinate Bench in the impugned order we are not
inclined to entertain this review petition.
[10] However, in the instant review petition are concerned, it is
relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State Tax
Officer (1) and Ors. reported in (2024)2SC C 362 dated 31.10.2023
wherein in para 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made an observation that “in
the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of review,
unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the
Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a
second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result……… A
review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So,
the law laid down must rest in peace.”
Page | 3
[11] Whereas, in para 11 in the same judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court made an observation also by referring the judgment in
Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8
SCC 715 and wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made very
pivotal observations:
“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure a judgment
may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-
evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order
47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction
Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and
corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in
disguise.”
[12] In view of the above stated position, we are of the opinion
that the well considered judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within
the scope and ambit of review. The learned GA for the review petitioner has
failed to make out any mistake or any error apparent on the face of the
record in the impugned judgment even though it has been referred and
have failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by this Court
in various decisions for reviewing the impugned judgment. Since we are not
inclined to entertain this review petition, we do not propose to deal with the
other submissions made by the learned GA for the petitioner inclusive of the
Page | 4
learned counsel for the respondents in this matter. Accordingly, this review
petition is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Page | 5