- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION No. 526 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8802 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O. PARAMESHWAR H., AGED 73 YEARS, RETIRED AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, IN THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, MANGALORE, RESIDING AT DEVIPRASAD, BEHIND S.P.OFFICE, BANNANJE, UDUPI -576101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE -570001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE- 575001. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE SUB DIVISION, MANGALORE -575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 PASSED IN WP No.8802/2022 (S- KSAT) VIDE ANNEXURE A, TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER DISENTITLEMENT OF ARREARS OF PENSION AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS, UPON - REFIXATION OF HER PENSION CONSEQUENT TO HER PROMOTION TO THE POST OF SHIRESTEDAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. Panduranga Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and, Sri. K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 8802 of 2022 has filed the present review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 22.09.2025. The petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.08.2021, whereby promotion was denied on the ground of delay and laches. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her junior, Smt. B. Pushpa, was promoted to the post of Sheristedar on 24.02.2006. It is further contended that the petitioner’s representation for consideration for promotion was recommended on 21.02.2007 and that she is entitled to promotion from the date on which her junior was promoted. This Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s junior was promoted while the petitioner was still in service, held that the petitioner was entitled to promotion from the date of promotion of her junior. Accordingly, while directing the respondent authorities to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sheristedar with effect from the date on which her junior was promoted, this Court denied arrears on revision of pension. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025 4. The present review petition is filed seeking grant of arrears of pension. Sri Panduranga Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that once the petitioner is held to be eligible for consideration for promotion and consequent revision of pension, she would be entitled to arrears, and that denial of arrears is erroneous. 5. We are not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2010. Her junior was promoted on 24.02.2006, and the petitioner’s name was recommended for promotion on 21.02.2007. However, the petitioner approached the Tribunal only in the year 2018, i.e., after a delay of more than ten years from the date of promotion of her junior. The delay is clearly attributable to the petitioner. Once the delay is attributable to the petitioner, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own lapse. 6. For these reasons, this Court, while directing promotion with notional benefits, denied arrears in the facts of the present case. Upon reconsideration of the submissions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record is made out so as to warrant review. Accordingly, the review petition is rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE *MV List No.:1 Sl No.: 25