Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010073622025 2026:GAU-AS:3299 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./55/2025 KH BIDYAPATI SINGHA S/O- LATE KH BALHOB SINGHA R/O- VILL- JALAMPUR PO- SUDARSONPUR PT-III DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 2: FOZOL AHMED LASKAR S/O. NIAMAT ALI LASKAR R/O. VILL. AND P/O. NIMAICHANDPUR PT.-I DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 3: FARUK AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O. AFTAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O. VILL.- RONGPUR PT.-IV P/O. SAHABAD P/S. KATLICHERA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR Page No.# 2/4 GHY-06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-781019. 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI P/O. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151. ------------ Advocate for : MR. M KHAN Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 06-03-2026 1. The present review petition, seeks a re-agitation of issues which stood concluded by common order dated 07.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6064/2024 and another writ petition. 2. The principal contention arises is that this Court, while dismissing the petition, proceeded on the footing that the petitioners had claimed arrears of salary for the period prior to the regularisation of their service, whereas according to them, the relief was confined to grant of seniority, timescale and annual increments for the past service rendered prior to the regularisation. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited. 3. A review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies only for correction of Page No.# 3/4 errors apparent on the face of the record, and not for reconsideration of matters already on record. Re-appreciation of the merits or re-appreciation of the reliefs originally claimed falls outside the purview of the review. 4. In the case in hand, even if the contention of the petitioners is accepted that their original prayer did not expressly seek arrears of salary, the core issue remains unaltered. The claim for seniority, timescale and annual increment for the period prior to regularisation is intrinsically founded upon recognition of such past service as qualifying service. 5. This Court, while dismissing the petition, has already recorded a categorical finding that the order of regularization provides that the benefits shall be granted only from date of their regularization. 6. The order of regularization clearly negates any claim of pre- regularization service. The factual backdrop further fortifies this conclusion. 7. It is not in dispute that the initial appointments of the petitioners were found to be doubtful and not genuine, and only upon a long legal process coupled with the findings of Manoharan Committee, where their services were ultimately regularized, with the condition that they shall not be entitled for salaries for past services. 8. The regularization in such circumstances essentially negates the other benefit claim in this petition, such as, timescale and annual increment including seniority etc. 9. The order of regularization itself is prospective to permit the petitioners to claim seniority or financial progression based on a period of service which is not recognized in the regularisation order, and therefore, the core issue has been decided in the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6064/2024 (supra). 10. The distinction now sought to be drawn between arrears of salary Page No.# 4/4 and service benefit is, in the present context, without any real difference. 11. Grant of seniority, timescale, increments for the pre-regularization period would run contrary to the very basis of the regularization as well as the basis on which the writ petition was dismissed. 12. Accordingly, it is of the opinion of this Court that no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated in the aforesaid order. The grievance projected by the petitioners is essentially one of dissatisfaction with the reasoning and conclusion of this Court, which cannot be ground for review. 13. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. 14. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant