[2025:RJ-JP:36975-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 271/2019 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1202/2016 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9511/2007 Ishaq Mohommad S/o Shri Zafar Ali, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Bathegarh Via Sarwad, District Ajmer. ----Review-Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government of Rajasthan Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department. 2. Secretary To The Govt., General Administration Department Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Director, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 280/2019 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1203/2016 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7989/2007 1. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 1687, Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Gundi Ka Chowk, Jaipur. 2. Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Niwaru Via Jhotwara, District Jaipur. 3. Koja Ram S/o Shri Goparam, Aged About 56 Years, D.R.D.A. Pali Raj. 4. Hariom Jangid S/o Shri Gordhan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o C/o Archana Beauty Parlor, Kothyari Sadan, Jail Road, Jhalawar. 5. Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 58 Years, [2025:RJ-JP:36975-DB] (2 of 4) [WRW-271/2019] R/o Ward No. 32 Dabla Road Churu, Raj. 6. Chandra Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 1687, Baba Harish Chandra Marg Gundi Ka Chowk, Jaipur 7. Abdullah S/o Shri Mohammad, Aged About 60 Years, Tehsil Manoharthana, District Jhalawar. 8. Kanheya Lal S/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Ajeetpura, Post Gunshi, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk. 9. Nathu Lal S/o Shri Rajuji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Gudli Post Veer, Via Srinagar, District Ajmer ----Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Its Secretary. 2. Secretary General Administration Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhawan in DB Review Petition No. 280/2019 Mr. Shobhit Tiwari in DB Review Petition No. 271/2019 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena Ms. Anjali Ranga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 11/09/2025 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 280/2019 is condoned. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1202/2016 and another connected matter vide [2025:RJ-JP:36975-DB] (3 of 4) [WRW-271/2019] judgment dated 16.10.2019, refused to give the benefit to the petitioners which had been granted to them in the first round of safeguarding their pay scales. 3. We, in review, would have limited scope for interference. A review petition cannot be decided like a regular petition and even if the view taken by the Court takes away the earlier benefit given to the petitioners in the first round of litigation, we in review cannot set aside such a judgment as it would amount to examining the case on merits. The re-hearing on merits is not permissible. We refrain from entertaining these review petitions. 4. The scope of review has been recently examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.:- (2024) 2 SCC 362 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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. 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- [2025:RJ-JP:36975-DB] (4 of 4) [WRW-271/2019] 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.” 5. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Amit/Ritu/42-43