*1* review126&127o26 DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 126 OF 2026 IN WP/12063/2023 THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THR ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND ORS VERSUS BHASKAR PANDURANG JANMALE AND ANOTHER ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6313 OF 2026 IN WP/12063/2023 BHASKAR PANDURANG JANMALE VERSUS THE GEBERAL NABAGER TELECOM THROUGH ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MEDURI M SRIKANTH AND ORS … AND REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2026 IN WP/4022/2023 THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THR ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND ORS VERSUS SHANTILAL BHAGCHAND BARWAL AND ANOTHER ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6311 OF 2026 IN WP/4022/2023 SHANTILAL BHAKCHAND BARWAL VERSUS THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THROUGH ITS 2026:BHC-AUG:40351-DB *2* review126&127o26 DB GENERAL MANAGER … Shri Shyam C. Arora, advocate for the Review Applicant/ original petitioner/ BSNL in WP. Shri R.T. Diwate and Shri Mohsin Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.1/ employees in Review Applications. Shri Ajay G. Talhar, DSGI, for respondent No.2/ UoI. … CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. Reserved on : 17 August 2026 Pronounced on : 03 September 2026 ORDER ( Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :- 1. Since both Review Applications seek review of the common judgment dated 20.04.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4022/2023 and 12063/2023, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 3. By these Review Applications, the applicant/ BSNL seeks review of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2026, whereby the said writ petitions preferred by the applicant/BSNL *3* review126&127o26 DB came to be dismissed and the applicant BSNL was directed to finalize the regular pension case of the respondents/ employees and to release the regular pension, pensionary benefits, consequential benefits and arrears in accordance with law. 4. Shri Arora, learned advocate for the applicant/ BSNL, submitted that certain documents and legal provisions were not properly appreciated while deciding the writ petitions. According to Shri Arora, the appointment order dated 10.12.1991 demonstrates that respondent No.1 had obtained appointment on the basis of his Scheduled Tribe claim; that the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2016 required the employee to register himself online for caste validity; that Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules empowers the applicant/BSNL to withhold pensionary benefits; and that the respondents/ employees had obtained employment by producing false caste certificates. By contending these grounds, Shri Arora sought review of the judgment of this Court. 5. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising *4* review126&127o26 DB the power of review. The power of review is not an appellate power. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that an error which is not self-evident and which has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be regarded as an error apparent on the face of the record. Review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise. Similarly, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of review may be exercised for correction of a mistake but cannot be exercised to substitute one view for another. The jurisdiction is to be exercised within the well recognised limitations governing review jurisdiction. 6. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, we have considered the grounds raised by the applicant/ BSNL. In the judgment under review, this Court had already considered the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2016 and Section 6(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and held that the *5* review126&127o26 DB statutory obligation to forward the caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee was upon the appointing authority. The applicant BSNL, therefore, seeks reconsideration of an issue which was specifically considered and decided. 7. As regards the appointment order dated 10.12.1991, the judgment under review had recorded finding that there was no material to establish that the respondents/ employees were appointed against posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category and that a mere entry of caste in the service record was insufficient for that purpose. The present contention requires re- appreciation of the appointment order and the material on record. Such exercise is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. The contention regarding Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1972 and Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules also does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant/ BSNL has not demonstrated that the caste claim of the respondents/ employees was false or invalid. The allegation of fraud, therefore, cannot be treated as an established fact in the present review proceedings. 8. Reliance upon the judgment in Chairman And Managing Director, FCI vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, 2017 (8) *6* review126&127o26 DB SCC 670, is also of no assistance. The consequences considered in that case arise upon invalidation of the caste claim. In the present case, as noticed in the judgment under review, the caste claim of the respondents/ employees had not been adjudicated during their service. Similarly, other decisions cited by the learned advocate Shri Arora do not demonstrate any error apparent in the judgment under review. 9. The judgment under review had also relied upon State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of statutory authority. No provision or statutory order authorising withholding of the respondents/ employees pensionary benefits in the facts of the present case has been demonstrated. 10. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the grounds raised in the Review Application essentially seek rehearing of the writ petitions and reappreciation of the material already considered by this Court. No new and important matter, nor any patent error apparent on the face of the record, has been established. We, therefore, find no ground to review the *7* review126&127o26 DB judgment and order dated 20.04.2026. 11. Hence, both the Review Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. As far as both Civil Applications filed by the respondents/ employees for withdrawal of amount is concerned, in view of dismissal of the writ petitions on merits and also dismissal of the review applications today, both Civil Applications are allowed. The applicants/ employees are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court along with accrued interest. However, the employees shall furnish usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)