- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.100515 OF 2025 (S-R) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100514 OF 2025 (S-R) IN WA NO.100515/2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD 580001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 5. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (A AND E), KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAJI GANGARAM SHINDE, AGE. YEARS, OCC. RETIRED HEADMASTER, R/O #200/16, SHIVAJI NAGAR, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591302. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 2. VISHWA BHARAT SEVA SAMITHI REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, VIJAY P. NANDIHALLI, R/O #1644, ALVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 3. THE HEAD MASTER, MADHYAMIKA VIDYALAYA, JAMBOTI, KHANAPUR TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591302. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100075/2025 DISPOSED OF ON 22.07.2025 AND IN W.P.NO.108640/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2025 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100075/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL & ETC. IN WA NO.100514/2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD 580001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 AND: 1. SHIVAJI GANGARAM SHINDE, AGE. YEARS, OCC. RETIRED HEADMASTER, R/O #200/16, SHIVAJI NAGAR, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302. 2. VISHWA BHARAT SEVA SAMITHI REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, VIJAY P. NANDIHALLI, R/O #1644, ALVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE HEAD MASTER, MADHYAMIKA VIDYALAYA, JAMBOTI, KHANAPUR TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591302. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100072/2025 DISPOSED OF ON 22.07.2025 AND IN W.P.NO.108934/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2025 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100072/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL & ETC. THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) These two appeals are taken up together, as the same have been filed challenging the order passed in RP No.100072/2025 c/w RP No.100075/2025, which were disposed off by common order dated 22.07.2025. The State, which was the respondent in the writ proceedings, has filed the present appeals. The State was also the respondent in the review petitions referred to above as well. 2. The State was aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid review petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the review petitions by allowing the same in terms of observation made at paragraph-15 of the order, which reads as under: a) The review petitions are allowed. b) The orders in W.P. Nos.108640/2017 and 108934/2017, dated 10.06.2024, is modified. c) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay to petitioner No.1 the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the delayed payment of the service benefits as claimed in W.P. No.108640/2017. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 d) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay salaries payable to petitioner No.1 for the period between November- 2010 to September2012 with interest at 12% p.a. as claimed in W.P. No.108934/2017. e) The aforesaid payments shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. f) It is made clear that should there be any further delay, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall jointly pay ₹5,000/- per day as cost to the petitioner No.1 out of their personal account, until the petitioner No.1 is paid his dues as directed. g) In addition, they shall also personally pay cost of ₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 for having deliberately avoided the implementation of the orders by taking inconsistent and reckless stand and subjecting him to endless agony by compelling him to repeatedly approach this Court. h) In light of the disposal of the petitions, the pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off. i) List these matters on 29.08.2025 to report compliance. 3. It must be noticed that the petitioner had approached the writ Court by filing WP No.108640/2017 seeking - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 for direction to the respondents, who were the State as well as the Management of the Educational Institution, to pay interest on the amount of pension benefits for the delayed payment of such pension benefits for the period from 1.10.2012 to 17.4.2015. The petitioner had also, in the companion petition in WP No.108934/2017, sought for payment of salary for the period from November-2010 to September-2015 amounting to Rs.9,32,858/- along with interest. Both these petitions were clubbed together and disposed off by order dated 10.06.2024. The operative portion of the order disposing off the above writ petitions is contained in para-13 of the order, which is extracted below: “13. The respondents - authorities shall consider the payment of interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of the service benefits as claimed in W.P. No. 108640/2017 and shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for salaries during the period between November-2010 and September-2012, in accordance with law, at any rate, within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 4. In light of non-compliance of the direction at para-13 of the said writ petitions, extracted above, the petitioner had filed two contempt petitions in CCC No.100013/2025 c/w CCC No.100016/2025. The contempt petition in CCC No.100013/2025 was dropped by order dated 20.3.2025 with the observations at paras-3 to 6, which reads thus: “3. The respondent No.5/accused No.5 has filed an affidavit placing on record that from 09.01.1998 to 20.10.2011, an Administrator was appointed and was functioning as the Management/Governing Council. That, during the said period, all the administrative functions including disciplines and control of all the teachers and staff of the Schools of VBSS Trust, was being carried out by the Administrator. It is further deposed that the management was handed over charge of the educational institution on 20.10.2011. Hence, it is contended that the management is not liable to comply with the order of this Court. 4. It is relevant to note that the learned Single Judge at paragraph No.13 of the order dated 10.06.2024 has merely directed the “respondents/authorities”. There is no specific direction to any particular authority or the management of institution to make payment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 5. Since the official respondents and the management are inter se contending that the others is liable to comply with the order passed by learned Single Judge, adjudication of the said question cannot be undertaken in the present contempt proceedings. 6. In view of the aforementioned, the present contempt proceedings are dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate such other proceedings as may be available to him under law.” 5. Another contempt petition in CCC No.100016/2025 came to be disposed off by order dated 23.06.2025 and the relevant observations at paras-4 and 5 are as follows: “4. However, having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and on perusing the affidavit of compliance and the endorsement issued to the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that we have to consider the submissions in the light of the orders already passed by the Coordinate Bench while dropping the contempt proceedings in the other matter. What we find is that paragraph No.13 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is the operative portion, similar directions have been issued in respect of both the Writ Petitions. The direction is that the respondents- authorities shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for salaries during the period November - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 2010 to September 2012 in accordance with law. Therefore, there cannot be a different consideration insofar as the prayer made in the Writ Petition and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, even in respect of payment of salary during the period of suspension. The direction is only to consider the claim in accordance with law. In the other contempt petition, the Coordinate Bench has held that it is relevant to note that in paragraph No.13 of the order, the learned Single Judge has merely directed the respondents/authorities to consider and no specific direction has been issued to any particular authority or the management of the institution to make payment. For that reason, the contempt petition was dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate such other proceedings as may be available to him under law. 5. Accordingly, this contempt petition is also dropped while reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate action in accordance with law if the petitioner is aggrieved of the endorsement dated 02.12.2024 (document No.3) filed along with the compliance affidavit. Ordered accordingly.” 6. It is to be noticed that the observation while dropping the contempt proceedings primarily rests on the stand taken by respondent/State, as contained in their affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings, which was enclosed along with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 Communications dated 2.9.2024, 6.11.2024, 11.11.2024 & 2.12.2024. It is relevant to notice that, it is only after these Communications of the State filed along with the affidavit in the contempt proceedings were taken note of and the contempt proceedings were subsequently dropped, RP No.100072/2025 and RP No.100075/2025 came to be filed on 30.6.2025 with the delay of more than 300 days. 7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the said review petitions were filed by both the Management of the Educational Institution as well as the petitioner. The grounds raised in the review petitions, which are identical, are extracted below: “It is submitted that so far as the entitlement of review petitioner No.1 regarding payment of salary for the period from 1st November, 2010 to 30th September, 2012 and interest to the review petitioner for the delayed payment of the service benefits and the claim of the review petitioner for the salaries during the period between November, 2010 and September, 2012 is not in dispute. Further it is also not in dispute that the suspension order is passed by the administrator. It is submitted that the review petitioner seeks modification of the order with a specific direction to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 the respondent No.3 to pay interest to the review petitioner for the delayed payment of the service benefits and the claim of the review petitioner for the salaries during the period between November, 2010 and September, 2012 within a stipulated time. It is submitted that there is no fault on the part of the management so far as sending proposal for payment of service benefits. It is submitted that the respondents till this day have not paid the above amounts. Under these circumstances as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorakhpur University and Others Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & others reported in 2001(6) SCC 591, the review petitioner is entitled to the interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed period. The copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorkhpur University and Others Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra is herewith produced as Annexure- C.” 8. We have perused the order passed in the above review petitions. It must be noticed that the review petitions, when entertained by the Court, is to be limited to the grounds raised therein and the Court cannot traverse beyond the grounds urged. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 9. A perusal of the review petitions would indicate that the Review Court while reviewing the original order has taken note of the proceedings in CCC No.100013/2025 & CCC No.100016/2025 and has noticed the stand of the respondent/State. The Court has further recorded the observations at paras-9 to 14, while concluding and allowing the review petitions in terms of direction at para-15. 10. A perusal of the observations made at paras-9 to 13 would clearly indicate that the Review Court has entered into the facts of the case and the reasons for rejection of the plea of the petitioner and while obtaining clarification from respondent/State, has allowed the review petitions. 11. Suffice it to state that the review jurisdiction is a limited jurisdiction and it cannot be treated to be an appellate jurisdiction. Further, the Court while dealing with the review petition is confined itself to the grounds urged. The grounds raised in the review petition, already extracted above, relate to payment of interest for the delayed payment and those are the only grounds made out in the review petition. If that were to be - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 so, the learned Single Judge ought not to have traversed beyond the scope of grounds raised in the review petition. 12. We also find that the grounds for review are limited and the Apex Court in the case of Kamalesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Others1 has reiterated the narrow jurisdiction of entertaining the review petition. The observation made at para- 20 laying down the grounds for review are as below: 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 [(1921-22) 49 IA 144] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526] 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. [(2013) 8 SCC 337] 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. 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 (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. (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. 13. In the present case, no such ground for review has been made out. We find that the Review Court seeks to add the grounds and the basis for its earlier order, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Review Court, as the Review Court cannot supplement and add reasons for the original order passed in the writ petition. Once the order is passed and the writ petitions are disposed off, by way of review of such order, reasons cannot be supplied to the original order. Once the endorsements are given by the State and the contempt proceedings are dropped, the only remedy after dropping of the contempt proceedings, is to challenge the validity of the response of the State placed by way - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 of endorsement. The endorsement issued and the observations cannot be the cause of action for review. 14. No doubt, learned counsel for the Management of the Institution had contended that the clarification was sought to the order passed in the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge, by way of review. Insofar as such contention is concerned, clearly the grounds for review do not include the grounds seeking clarification of the order passed in the writ petitions. Even otherwise, when endorsement is challenged, we keep it open for the Court to take note of the order passed in the writ proceedings. We refuse to enter into the contention as to the purport of the order passed in the writ petition, as any observation made would prejudice the parties in the proceedings to be initiated claiming further relief for payment of arrears as well as interest. 15. In light of the discussion made supra, the appeals are allowed. The order dated 22.07.2025 passed in RP No.100072/2025 c/w RP No.100075/2025 is set-aside. All contentions of both sides on the merits of the orders/communications of the State, which were filed along with - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11242-DB WA No. 100515 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100514 of 2025 the affidavit in the contempt proceedings, are kept open for consideration. 16. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the contentions raised including as raised in the writ appeals or as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared for the Management of the Institution as well as the employee. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40