Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits

"Upon perusal of the impugned order, we are satisfied that the Division Bench committed serious error in exercising its review jurisdiction." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a High Court committed a "serious error" in exercising its review jurisdiction by proceeding on a "mistaken notion" regarding the grounds of its own previous order.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu consequently set aside the High Court's review order and restored the original order that had dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India, thereby reinstating the Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits for an employee.

The appellant, M. Ganeshan, had successfully invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta, which directed that his appointment to the Lower Grade Clerk (LGC) position (Group ‘C’ category) be treated as a direct recruitment, entitling him to 1st and 2nd ACP benefits. The Union of India challenged this CAT order before the Calcutta High Court, but their writ petition was dismissed on March 16, 2010. Subsequently, the Union of India sought a review of this dismissal, which the High Court allowed via an impugned order dated July 19, 2013, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its review jurisdiction in recalling its earlier judgment, particularly when it proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the grounds of its own original order.

Supreme Court Finds High Court Committed 'Serious Error' in Review

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s exercise of review jurisdiction, noting a fundamental flaw in its approach. The High Court had proceeded on the mistaken belief that it had dismissed the Union of India’s writ petition solely on the ground of parity, i.e., because six similarly circumstanced employees had also been extended the benefits.

Original Dismissal Not Solely Based on Parity

Upon a detailed perusal of the High Court’s original order dated March 16, 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that parity was merely an additional ground for dismissal, not the sole basis. The original order had specifically found that the appellant’s appointment as a Group ‘C’ staff in 1983 was a fresh appointment, and his prior status in Group ‘D’ was of no consequence beyond that date.

The High Court had originally observed, "Hence he was entitled to claim benefit of ACP on expiry of 12 years’ period being in 1995… Such benefit in our view, must be considered as the 1st ACP and not the 2nd ACP." This reasoning, which formed the core of the original dismissal, was distinct from the parity argument.

Primary Grounds Unchallenged in Review Petition

The Supreme Court highlighted that the crucial findings of the High Court in its original order—that the appellant’s Group ‘C’ appointment was a fresh one and that the ACP benefit extended to him in 2006 (retrospective from 1999) was indeed the 1st ACP benefit—were not challenged by the respondents in their review petition.

Impugned Review Order Suffers from Apparent Error

In light of these facts, the Supreme Court unequivocally concluded that the High Court’s review order dated July 19, 2013, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. This error stemmed from the High Court’s incorrect understanding of its own previous judgment and its subsequent decision to recall that judgment.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court, therefore, had no option but to set aside the erroneous review order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order dated March 16, 2010, dismissing the respondents’ writ petition (and thereby upholding the CAT order in favour of the appellant) was restored. The respondents were directed to give effect to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal within three months from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment.

This judgment by the Supreme Court reaffirms the strict limitations on review jurisdiction, emphasizing that courts cannot re-evaluate their decisions based on a mistaken understanding of their own prior pronouncements. By setting aside the High Court's review order, the Supreme Court has ensured that the employee's entitlement to Assured Career Progression benefits, as originally determined by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, is duly restored and implemented.

Date of Decision: August 04, 2026