Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010119612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./107/2026 TARUN KUMAR BARUA AND ANR S/O LATE GIRISH CH. BARUA, R/O BARUAPATTI, P.O.- GAURIPUR, WARD NO. 3, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331. PREVIOUSLY POSTED AT GAURIPUR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION, APDCL, GAURIPUR, PIN-783331 2: PANKAJ SARKAR S/O LATE PHANINDRA NATH SARKAR R/O MASTERPARA WARD NO.4 P.O.- GAURIPUR DIST.-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331. PREVIOUSLY POSTED AT GAURIPUR ELECTRICAL SUB- DIVISION APDCL GAURIPUR PIN-783331 VERSUS THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-78100. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR Page No.# 2/6 GUWAHATI-781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH, MR. A. ALI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.07.2026 Heard Shri M. J. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K. P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. 2. The instant application has been filed for review of a judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed in WP(C)/8306/2022. While the writ petition was filed by 32 numbers of petitioners, the instant petition has been filed by two applicants who were petitioner nos. 22 and 24 seeking review. 3. The writ petition was filed for a direction that the petitioners be treated under the Old Pension Scheme in connection with the services render by them with the APDCL. It was projected that the petitioners were appointed by the erstwhile ASEB in the period of 1989-1995 and on the aspect of regularisation, they had earlier approached this Court which had culminated in a judgment and order dated 11.12.2012. Accordingly, in the year 2014, their services were regularised. It was the grievance of the petitioners that under such circumstances, they should be treated to be appointees of the period prior to application of the New Pension Scheme. 4. This Court however after hearing the learned counsel for the parties did not agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners, more particularly, with the aspect of regularisation. This Court had taken into Page No.# 3/6 consideration that the appointments made in the year 2014 were new appointments and therefore the claim to have the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme would not be sustainable. 5. Shri Baruah, the learned counsel has submitted that so far as the two applicants are concerned, it appears that they were appointed in the year 1983 pursuant to certain selection. He has submitted that such information could be derived after filing of application under the RTI Act. 6. On the other hand, Shri Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has submitted at the outset that the instant petition has been filed beyond the period prescribed for preferring a review and no acceptable reasons have been cited explaining the delay. On the aspect of the maintainability of the review petition, he has submitted that no case has been made out to bring the matter within the ambit wherein this Court may exercise review jurisdiction. He has also specifically submitted that even assuming that the applicants were appointed in the year 1983 pursuant to some selection, their cause of action could not have been joined together along with other petitioners in the writ petition. 7. The powers to be exercised by a Review Court are circumscribed and only under limited condition such powers may be exercised. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320; the following principles have been laid down with regard to review: “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 Page No.# 4/6 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 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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. 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. (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. Page No.# 5/6 (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 8. In the subsequent case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, a Three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra). 9. The order which has been sought to be reviewed is dated 07.08.2024 and the review petition has been presented on 11.06.2026. There is no acceptable reasons for explaining the delay. Though there may not be a strict application of the Limitation Act, 1963, delay and laches are integral part of exercising writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction exercised by Writ Court being plenary in nature, the power to review is inherent. However, the requirement of due diligence cannot be overlooked. 10. In the instant case even if the aspect of delay in presenting the application for review is ignored and overlooked, the primary ground on which the review is sought for is a ground which was very much available to the applicants while presenting the writ petition. It cannot be accepted that the aspect of being appointed in the year 1983 pursuant to a selection process could be made known to the applicants only after an RTI application was filed. Such process would have been within the knowledge of the applicants which was not pleaded in the writ petition. 11. On a specific query put to Shri Baruah, the learned counsel, he has fairly submitted that as a matter of fact the aforesaid pleadings were not made in the writ petition and even the orders of appointment were not annexed. Page No.# 6/6 12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no grounds for exercising review jurisdiction is made out. 13. Review petition accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant