Orissa HC Refuses to Reopen Dismissed EPFO Writ, Says Review Cannot Become ‘Appeal in Disguise’ without Error Apparent on Record [Read Order]

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation ( EPFO ), refusing to reopen its earlier judgment that had upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal ( CAT ) order granting limited financial relief to a retired employee.

The court, stating the strict limits of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), held that the organisation’s plea amounted to seeking a rehearing of the case on merits impermissible unless there is an obvious and self-evident error on the face of the record.

The EPFO sought review of the Court’s 15 September 2025 decision, which had declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s direction to re-exercise promotion processes. The Tribunal had found that such re-evaluation could result only in financial benefits to the retired employee and would not disturb the rights of others.

In the review application, EPFO argued that the Court had overlooked its objections on delay, asserting that the employee filed the original application nearly seventeen years after the relevant promotional events.

It also contended that the Tribunal incorrectly compared the employee’s position with staff from other regions governed by different seniority structures before the 1999 cadre restructuring.

The Bench, however, said that review is a narrowly confined remedy which cannot function as an extension of appellate jurisdiction.

The bench quoting the Supreme Court’s decisions in Parision Devi, Haridas Das, Kamal Sengupta, Kamlesh Verma and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, noted that an error that must be “fished out and searched” through elaborate reasoning cannot qualify as an “error apparent on the face of record.”

In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. vs Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in 1997, the supreme court observed that “A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.”

The Court further observed that the EPFO did not place any new evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence, nor did it show that the Tribunal’s order suffered from manifest illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

Rather, the petition basically asked for a reexamination of issues that had been covered in the initial writ proceedings. The Court stated that such an attempt cannot be allowed under the pretense of review when an appeal, if permitted by law, would have been the proper remedy.

The Bench held that none of the limited grounds recognised under Order XLVII were met in this case. Since no self-evident error subvert the soundness of the judgment was demonstrated, the request to re-open the dismissed writ petition was rejected.

Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates