Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Review Dismissed

Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: July 08, 2026

Case Overview

Petitioners: Ram Rattan (Petitioner) vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank and another (Respondents).
Original Civil Writ Petition No. 26672 of 2016 resulted in an order dated 23.04.2026 granting gratuity relief.
On 08 July 2026, a review application (RA‑CW‑289 of 2026) was filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, seeking review of the 23 April 2026 order.
Petitioner's counsel argued that the original relief was limited to gratuity and now also sought interest on gratuity and other retiral benefits, including leave encashment.
Respondent‑Bank counsel contended that the review was a disguised appeal, beyond the scope of review jurisdiction, and that no patent error, inadvertent omission, or mistake was evident.

Court Reasoning

The Court observed that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent and self‑evident errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as an appeal.
It noted that the petitioner had not included leave encashment in the prayer or pleaded it in any paragraph of the original writ petition.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Mamata Mohanty v. State of Orissa (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction must be exercised based on the pleadings.
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the review application.

Final Outcome

Topics: Banking, Legal Review