Failing To Discuss Irrelevant Statutory Provisions Is Not An Error Apparent On Record: J&K High Court Dismisses Review Plea

The Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohammad Yousuf Wani ruled that the omission to refer to and analyze provisions having no bearing on the dispute does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

The petitioner, Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb, had approached the Court in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) seeking pensionary benefits following his retirement from SKICC, an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act.

The Division Bench, in its earlier verdict, held that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as he was neither appointed to a pensionable post under the Government nor covered by the pension scheme that came into force in SKICC only in 2014 four years after his superannuation in May 2010.

Aggrieved, Naqeeb through Sr Advocate Reyaz Jan with Mt Adil filed the instant review petition contending that the earlier judgment had failed to consider certain Government instructions appended to Articles 1-A, 185-D(iv), and 177 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (CSR), 1956, thereby committing an error apparent on record.

Court's Observations:

Dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Kumar, authoring the judgment for the Bench, meticulously examined the grounds raised for review. The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of review is confined to correcting grave and manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue merits of the case.

Rejecting the petitioner's first ground, the Court held that there were no instructions appended to Article 1-A of the CSR, and the ones referred to under Article 4 dealt only with government servants temporarily appointed and later confirmed with retrospective effect. These provisions, the Court underscored, had no relevance to the petitioner's case, as he was never appointed to any civil post under the Government.

Further, the Court held that Articles 185-D(iv) and 177 dealing with pension options for government servants transferred to autonomous bodies and qualifying service respectively were inapplicable to the petitioner. As an SKICC employee governed by the society's own bylaws, Naqeeb could not claim the status or benefits of a government servant, the bench said and remarked,

“.. We have, in the judgment under review, clearly held that the petitioner was never appointed to any civil post under the Government and, therefore, was not a Government servant at any point of time… We also fail to understand as to how Articles 185-D and 177 would be attracted in respect of the employees of a Society registered under Societies Registration Act which is governed by its own bylaws”.

The Bench observed that in the original LPA judgment, clear findings had been returned that the petitioner's post was never filled substantively through regular selection, nor was there any record of regularisation. Even assuming the 1988 government order regularized his services retrospectively, the Court pointed out that he ceased to be a government employee once he joined SKICC after its constitution in 1988.

The bench concluded that any reference to the CSR provisions cited by the petitioner was not only unwarranted but also immaterial to the controversy. Therefore, the alleged omission could not be viewed as a judicial error warranting review.

Holding that the review petition lacked merit and attempted to reopen issues already settled, the High Court dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Naqeeb Vs State of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 188

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment