HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION NO. - 105 OF 2025 Radhey Shyam Mishra …..Applicant(s) Versus Shri Pallav Mohapatra, M.D. and Chief Executive Officer, Central Bank of India, Mumbai and Another …..Opposite party(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : In person Counsel for Respondent(s) : Reserved on:- 04.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 18.09.2025 Court No. - 27 HON’BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam Mishra, applicant appearing in person. 2. The instant review application has been filed with the following prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to review and reverse the judgment and order dated 14.07.2025 passed in contempt application CAPL No. 1850 of 2019 (Radhey Shyam Mishra Versus Shri Pallav Mohapatra, Managing Director and Chief Executive officer, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai and another) restoring the above contempt application of the applicant / petitioner on its original number and the same may kindly be heard and decided on merits." 3. The petitioner has submitted that as the order dated 15.02.2016 passed in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1292 of 1998 as well as the order dated 06.03.2019 passed on the Clarification Application No. 133403 of 2 CMRA No. 105 of 2025 2018 in the aforesaid petition was not complied with in letter and spirit, the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1850 of 2019 was filed, which was dismissed by means of the order dated 14.07.2025. It has further been submitted by the applicant that he was working in the said Bank on the post of clerk and he was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 22.04.1985. Feeling aggrieved with this order, he preferred a writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1292 of 1998, which was allowed by means of the order dated 15.02.2016, thereafter, he was reinstated on the post of clerk in the said bank. In such circumstances, he is entitled to be given full pension being given to the clerical cadre. It has next been submitted by the applicant that on the basis of the pendency of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 18194 of 2023, (Rajeev Rishi The Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Radhey Shyam Mishra) before Hon'ble Supreme Court, only 50 percent pension has been paid to him, whereas he is entitled for full pension being given to the clerical cade. As he was having statutory right, he preferred the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1850 of 2019, but the same was dismissed by means of the order dated 14.07.2025. It is, thus, requested that the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in the said contempt application may be reviewed by setting aside the same and the contempt application may be restored to its original number. 4. Considering the applicant's submissions and perusing the record, it is evident that the ground of the review application as mentioned by the applicant is that the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in the aforesaid contempt application is illegal, unjustified and suffers from non application of mind of Hon'ble Court. However, in the Contempt of Courts Act, there is no provision of review and the identical controversy has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Vs. Baldev Raj reported in 1991 SCC OnLine All 1070 3 CMRA No. 105 of 2025 observing therein that when the Act does not confer inherent power or power of recall or review, then such powers cannot be invoked. Relevant Para 13 of the said judgment is as under:- "13. Obviously the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 not only defines civil and criminal contempt but also lays down the procedure. This Act does not expressly give any inherent power to the High Court in matter of contempt of Court. It provides In S. 19 appeals from order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. When the Act does not confer inherent power or power of recall or review and provides remedy against order or decision in the matters of contempt, the power of the High Court of recall or review in matters of contempt cannot be invoked." 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that in the Contempt of Courts Act, there is no provision of review, this Court is of the view that the review application, being misconceived, stands dismissed. (Rajeev Singh, J.) September 18, 2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench