- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 481 OF 2023 IN W.A. NO. 310/2022 BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR THALAGHATTAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 082. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV.,) AND: 1 . SRI BALAKRISHNA M AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O MARAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, R/O. AGARA TATAGUNI POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 082. 2 . SRI RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 3 . SRI G.C. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. G. CHANNABASAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE C/O. K. S. THIPPESWAMY INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT K.R. PURAM POST OFFICE K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. 4 . SMT. SHIVAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SHANKARAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEES KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT, R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER, THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 5 . SRI G. LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O GULLAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O. NO.12, UDAYAPALAYA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR ART OF LIVING UDAYALAPALYA POST BANGALORE - 560 082. 6 . SMT. NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O M. LINGANNAIAH GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 R/O LAKSHMIPURA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, TATAGUNI POST BANGALORE - 560082. 7 . SRI M. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O MARIYAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O. NO.90, RESHME NAGAR B.S.K. 6TH STAGE, GANIGARAPALYA THALAGHATTAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 109. 8 . SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O DASAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O TATAGUNI, TAGATUNI POST KENGERI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 082. 9 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O VENKATARAJAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O UDAYAPALYA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 082. 10 . SMT. PRAVEENA K.V AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SUDHIRA K.S GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 11 . SMT. R. LEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O RANGAHANUMAIAH THALAGHATTAPURA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NEAR METRO STATION KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 109. 12 . SRI K.G. HOMBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O GIDDAPPA, GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KAMBIPURA, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 074. 13 . SRI D.K CHOWDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O KONNAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 99, O.B. CHOODANAHALLI UTTARAHALLI HOBLI NEAR. ART OF LIVING KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 082. 14 . SRI NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O HONNAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 37, 5TH CROSS MANJUNATH NAGAR RAGHUVANAHALL GATE BANGLAORE - 560 062. 15 . SRI K. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICLUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 37, 5TGH CROSS MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAGHUVANAHALLI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 062. 16 . SRI N. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NARASAIAH GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 17 . SRI LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAIAH GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 78, LAKSHMIPURA KANAKAPURA ROAD TATAGUNI POST, BANGALORE - 560 062. 18 . SRI S. GURURAJA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SIDDAIAH GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 19 . SRI C.NAGALINGAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O CHINNASWAMAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 8, SILKWORM BREEDING AND GENETIC WING, K.S.S.R.D.I - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 BIDADI - 562 109, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 20 . SRI R.LAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA BSK 6TH STAGE, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 109. 21 . SRI T. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O THIMMARAYAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O TATAGUNI, TATAGUNIPOST BANGALORE - 560 062. 22 . SMT. M. PADMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O H.C. GOVINDARAJU GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE NO.10, R/O SAHARA LAYOUT GUBBALLALA 80 FEET ROAD BANGALORE - 560 061. 23 . SMT. SAYEEDA BANU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O G.M.MUNEER AHMED GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 24 . SMT. S. SARALA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O R. BHASKAR - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 75, 31ST CROSS TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041. 25 . SMT.S.N.MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O K.S. VENKATESH GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 147, 8TH CROSS 29TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE 1ST PHASE, B.T.M. LAYOUT KUVEMPU NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 058. 26 . SRI B.S. ARUN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O B.S SOMASHEKAR GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 27 . SRI SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O PUTTABASAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 28 . SRI G. PARAMASHIVAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O K.R. GOVINDASWAMY GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 R/O KSSRDI, THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 29 . SRI D.H. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O HANUMAIAH GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O TATAGUNI, BANGALORE - 560 082. 30 . SRI R. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O VENKATARAJAPPA GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O UDAPALYA, KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 062. 31 . SRI ANJANAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O YALAKAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O TATAGUNI, BANGALORE - 560 082. 32 . SRI D. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O DODDAHANUMATHAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 33 . SMT. MALAVAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O MUDDUMALLEGOWDA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 R/O KSSRIDI STAFF QUARTER SILKWORM BREEDING UNIT BIDADI - 562 109, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. 34 . SRI B.C. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O CHINNAPPA S GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/ TATAGUNI, TATAGUNI POST KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 08. 35 . SRI D. MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O DORESWAMY GROUP D EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O KSSRDI STAFF QUARTER SILKWORM BREEDING UNIT BIDADI - 562 109, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. 36 . G. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O GOVINDASHETTY GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O K.S.S.R.D.I SUB STATION MELINAKURUVALLI THIRTHAHALLI TQ SHIMOGA DIST, PIN - 577 432. 37 . G. KRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O GOVINDA NAYAK GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE K.S.S.R.D.I SUB STATION B.R. HILLS, YALANDUR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST- PIN CODE - 571 441. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 38 . SMT. P. BHARGAVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O HARIDAS.V.M GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O K.S.S.R.D.I, THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 39 . M. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O MANJAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O K.S.S.R.D.I SUB STATION MELINAKURUVALLI, THIRTHAHALLI TQ SHIMOGA DIST,PIN CODE - 577 432. 40 . VASUDEVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NANJAPPA GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O NO. 1488/2, 6TH MAIN ROAD KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 071. 41 . A.R. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O K.S.S.R.D.I, THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. 42 . SMT. NINGAMMA W/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS GROUP C EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE SERICULUTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE R/O K.S.S.R.D.I, THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 109. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 43 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALOE - 560 001. 44 . THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE KANAKAPURA ROAD THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE - 560 062. 45 . THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S. BHAGAWAT, SR. ADV., A/W SRI RAGAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-42; SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-43 & 45; V/O DATED 19.01.2024, NOTICE TO R-44, IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2022 IN W.A. NO. 310/2022 AT ANNEXURE A AND ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED, COMING ON 28.10.2024 FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is filed with a prayer to review the order dated 08.08.2022 passed in WA No.310/2022. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition are as follows:- Respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein had filed WP No.582/2019 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.07.2014 bearing No.vÉÆÃE 94 gÉÃPÀÈ« 2014 passed by respondent No.43 herein, bringing respondent Nos.1 to 42 under the purview of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2012’ for short) and also for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to implement the benefit of regularization to the petitioners by extending all benefits with reference to the order dated 27.02.2001. The said writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 this Court by order dated 01.12.2021 and the respondents in the writ petition were directed to withdraw the Notification dated 01.07.2014 insofar as the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein are concerned by which they were brought under the purview of the Act of 2012 and a direction was issued to give effect to the Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001 by which services of respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein were regularized and to grant consequential benefits to respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein. The order passed in WP No.582/2019 was unsuccessfully challenged by petitioner herein in WA No.310/2022, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.08.2022. Assailing the said order passed in WA No.310/2022, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.582/2019 and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.310/2022 are per se illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Sri. Ashwini Ray & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436. He submits that respondent Nos.1 to 42 were initially engaged as - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 daily wage workers and they were not appointed against any sanctioned post. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, their services cannot be regularized. He submits that petitioner cannot be compelled to pass any orders contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the review petition needs to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for contesting private respondent Nos.1 to 42 submits that there is an inordinate delay of one year three months in filing the review petition, which is not properly explained. He submits that after the disposal of WA No.310/2022, since the petitioner had failed to comply the order passed in WP No.582/2019, which was confirmed in WA No.310/2022, contempt proceeding were initiated against the petitioner in CCC No.826/2022 and in the said proceedings, petitioner had undertaken to comply the orders passed by this Court in WP No.582/2019 and WA No.310/2022 and had filed compliance affidavits on three dates of hearing. After the Bench which was hearing the contempt case expressed its displeasure regarding compliance reported, this review - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 petition is filed. He submits that in the earlier round of litigation, petitioner had suffered orders from this Court and had undertaken to regularize the services of contesting private respondents in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288-1379/1999 and recording the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, contempt proceedings were dropped. Petitioner had passed an Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001 and produced the same in the contempt proceedings and after the contempt proceedings was dropped, the order impugned dated 01.07.2014 which was challenged in WP No.582/2019 was passed bringing respondent Nos.1 to 42 under the purview of the Act of 2012. He submits that petitioner who has lost in the earlier two rounds of litigation cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue its case afresh. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362. 6. A perusal of the material available on record would go to show that respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein were initially appointed on daily wage basis by the petitioner during the year 1984-1985. Respondent Nos.1 to 42 had approached this Court in WP - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 Nos.29467-29569/1993 with a prayer for regularization of their services. This Court by order dated 09.09.1998 directed the petitioner herein to consider the case of respondent Nos.1 to 42 for regularization and absorption of their services in the post held by them and also for payment of salary on par with regularly appointed employees. As against the order passed in WP Nos.29467-29569/1993, petitioner had filed WA Nos.4344- 4346/1999, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.01.2000. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein had filed CCC (Civil) Nos.1288-1379/1999 and in the said proceedings, petitioner herein had produced Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001 (wrongly mentioned as order dated 27.02.2001 in the order passed in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288- 1379/1999) and had undertaken to regularize the services of respondent Nos.1 to 42 herein in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001 and based on such undertaking, the contempt proceedings were dropped, with liberty to challenge the order dated 24.04.2001. Having undertaken before this Court to regularize the services of respondent Nos.1 to 42, petitioner had passed the order dated 01.07.2014 bringing the respondent Nos.1 to 42 under the purview of the Act of 2012 and - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.1 to 42 had approached this Court in WP No.582/2019. 7. The Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001 issued by the petitioner, based on which contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288-1379/1999 was dropped, clearly reflects that petitioner had ordered to regularize the services of respondent Nos.1 to 42 with effect from 01.03.2001 on the then prevailing salary and had undertaken before the Division Bench of this Court in contempt proceedings in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288-1379/1999 to give effect to the order dated 24.04.2001 (wrongly referred to as order dated 27.02.2001 in the order passed in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288- 1379/1999). Inspite of such an undertaking given before this Court, respondent No.43 herein had issued the order dated 01.07.2014 bringing services of respondent Nos.1 to 42 under the purview of the Act of 2012, which had not even come into force as on the date of undertaking given by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288- 1379/1999. It is in this background, learned Single Judge of this Court directed the petitioner herein to withdraw the Order/Notification dated 01.07.2014 insofar as it relates to - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 respondent Nos.1 to 42 by which they were brought under the purview of the Act of 2012 and further, a direction was issued to give effect to the Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001 and grant consequential benefits to the respondent Nos.1 to 42. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed WA No.310/2022 and confirmed the order passed in WP No.582/2019. 8. Petitioner had filed compliance report in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288-1379/1999 and had produced the order dated 24.04.2001 in the said proceedings based on which contempt proceedings in CCC (Civil) Nos.1288-1379/1999 was closed reserving liberty to the aggrieved to challenge the order dated 24.04.2001. Subsequently, the order dated 01.07.2014 was passed bringing respondent Nos.1 to 42 under the purview of Act of 2012 and therefore, WP No.582/2019 was filed challenging the same. In the said Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court having directed the petitioner to withdraw the Order/Notification dated 01.07.2014 insofar as it relates to respondent Nos.1 to 42, has further directed to give effect to the Order/Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2001. It is now argued in the present Review Petition that respondent Nos.1 to 42 are - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 not at all entitled to be regularized in view of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thereby virtually an attempt is made to reopen the question which has been already decided in the earlier round of litigation. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra) in paragraph No.16 after referring to the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Beghar Foundation vs. K. S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1, has observed as follows:- "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 10. In the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 in paragraph Nos.12, 18 and 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "12. This Court has repeatedly held in various judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. This Court in - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib held as under: (SCC p. 675, para 1) “1. Mr Daphtary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a rehearing. May be, we were not right in refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” (emphasis in original) * * * 18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., held as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12) “11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. 12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of ‘second innings’ which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.” * * * Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 11. The petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record which calls for review of the order and on the other hand, attempt is made to reopen and reargue the question which is already decided in the earlier round of litigation. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same is impermissible and therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also deprecated the practice of review being filed by a new counsel, who had not appeared on behalf of the review petitioner in the earlier rounds of litigation. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736. Even for the said reason, this petition cannot be entertained. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 13. This review petition is filed along with application I.A.No.1/2023 with a prayer to condone the delay of 397 days caused in filing the review petition. The said application is supported by an affidavit in which it is stated that since compliance affidavit filed in CCC No.826/2022 was not accepted by respondent employees, there was a necessity of reviewing the order passed in WA No.310/2022. Since the explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2023 was not satisfactory, petitioner had filed better affidavit on 05.02.2024. Even in the said better affidavit, after giving the various dates of events, it is stated that since the petitioner was prosecuting the contempt proceedings in CCC No.826/2022 by filing compliance affidavits, which were not accepted by the respondent employees, there is a necessity to review the order passed in WA No.310/2022. The explanation offered by petitioner in the affidavit and also in the better affidavit filed to condone the inordinate delay of 397 days caused in filing the review petition is not at all satisfactory. Merely for the reason that the contesting private respondents had refused to accept the compliance report submitted by the petitioner, the same cannot - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 be a ground either to review the order or to condone the delay caused in filing the review petition. 14. A perusal of the order sheet in CCC No.826/2022 would go to show that petitioner had filed multiple compliance reports in CCC No.826/2022, but the contempt proceedings were not dropped on the basis of the said compliance reports. The question whether the petitioner had complied the order passed in WA No.310/2022 and WP No.582/2019 is a question to be considered in CCC No.826/2022 and for the reason that complainants in the aforesaid contempt proceedings had not accepted the compliance report filed by petitioner and on the other hand, they had objected the same, cannot be a reason either to entertain the review petition or to condone the delay caused in filing the review petition. From the material on record, it appears that only to protract the contempt proceedings, the present review petition was filed. The conduct of the petitioner who is an instrumentality of the State, therefore cannot be appreciated. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that this review petition is liable to be dismissed not only on the merits of the case but also on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the following order:- - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:971-DB RP No. 481 of 2023 15. The Review Petition is dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Hence, disposed of. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1