IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 RA-CW-289 of 2026 in Civil Writ Petition No. 26672 of 2016 Date of Decision: July 08 , 2026. Ram Rattan ...... PETITIONER (s) Versus Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank and another ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Arti, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate (through VC) for respondent-Bank. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. Instant application has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of order dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No.26672 of 2016. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the relief claimed in the writ petition was not confined merely to gratuity but prayer has also been made for grant of interest on gratuity and other retiral benefits, including leave encashment. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-bank opposes the review application being misconceived as the applicant/petitioner under the guise of the present review application, seeks to re-agitate the matter which is beyond the ambit of review jurisdiction. It is further argued that there exists no patent error, inadvertent omission or mistake apparent, which calls for review of the order OMKAR SINGHdated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court. 2026.07.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RA-CW-289 of 2026 in Civil Writ Petition No. 26672 of 2016 [2] 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going the file, I find no merit in the review application. Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise and that only a patent and self-evident error apparent on the face of the record can justify review. The applicant/petitioner has neither included leave encashment in his prayer nor pleaded in any paragraph of the writ petition. It is a trite of law that writ jurisdiction has to be exercised and adjudicated on the basis of pleadings in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mamata Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (2011) 3 SCC 436. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, the review application is dismissed. ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 08 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh