SHANTILAL BHAKCHAND BARWALversusTHE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THROUGH TIS GENERAL MANAGER

2026:BHC-AUG:40352-DB


                                          *1*          review126&127o26 DB


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 126 OF 2026
                                    IN WP/12063/2023
                     THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BHARAT
                   SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THR ASSISTANT GENERAL
                              MANAGER AND ORS
                                   VERSUS
                   BHASKAR PANDURANG JANMALE AND ANOTHER
                                      ...

                                          WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6313 OF 2026
                                     IN WP/12063/2023

                         BHASKAR PANDURANG JANMALE
                                   VERSUS
                    THE GEBERAL NABAGER TELECOM THROUGH
                ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MEDURI M SRIKANTH
                                   AND ORS
                                            …


                                         AND
                        REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2026
                                    IN WP/4022/2023
                     THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BHARAT
                    SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THR ASSISTANT GENERAL
                               MANAGER AND ORS
                                    VERSUS
                   SHANTILAL BHAGCHAND BARWAL AND ANOTHER
                                       ...

                                          WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6311 OF 2026
                                      IN WP/4022/2023

                         SHANTILAL BHAKCHAND BARWAL
                                    VERSUS
                   THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THROUGH ITS
                                *2*            review126&127o26 DB


                       GENERAL MANAGER
                                  …
Shri Shyam C. Arora, advocate for the Review Applicant/
original petitioner/ BSNL in WP.
Shri R.T. Diwate and Shri Mohsin Khan, Advocate for
Respondent No.1/ employees in Review Applications.
Shri Ajay G. Talhar, DSGI, for respondent No.2/ UoI.
                               …


                      CORAM :     KISHORE C. SANT
                                       &
                                  SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.


                      Reserved on : 17 August 2026

                      Pronounced on : 03 September 2026


ORDER (Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :-

1.           Since both Review Applications seek review of the

common judgment dated 20.04.2026 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition Nos.4022/2023 and 12063/2023, they are being decided

by this common order.


2.           Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the

respective parties.


3.           By these Review Applications, the applicant/ BSNL

seeks review of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2026,

whereby the said writ petitions preferred by the applicant/BSNL
                             *3*               review126&127o26 DB


came to be dismissed and the applicant BSNL was directed to

finalize the regular pension case of the respondents/ employees

and to release the regular pension, pensionary benefits,

consequential benefits and arrears in accordance with law.


4.          Shri Arora, learned advocate for the applicant/

BSNL, submitted that certain documents and legal provisions

were not properly appreciated while deciding the writ petitions.

According to Shri Arora, the appointment order dated 10.12.1991

demonstrates that respondent No.1 had obtained appointment on

the basis of his Scheduled Tribe claim; that the Government

Resolution dated 30.04.2016 required the employee to register

himself online for caste validity; that Rule 9 of the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Rule 61 of the BSNL

CDA Rules empowers the applicant/BSNL to withhold

pensionary benefits; and that the respondents/ employees had

obtained employment by producing false caste certificates. By

contending these grounds, Shri Arora sought review of the

judgment of this Court.


5.          At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the

limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising
                             *4*              review126&127o26 DB


the power of review. The power of review is not an appellate

power. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC

320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that an error

which is not self-evident and which has to be detected by a

process of reasoning cannot be regarded as an error apparent on

the face of the record. Review cannot be converted into an appeal

in disguise. Similarly, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6

SCC 224, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of

review may be exercised for correction of a mistake but cannot

be exercised to substitute one view for another. The jurisdiction

is to be exercised within the well recognised limitations

governing review jurisdiction.


6.          Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, we have

considered the grounds raised by the applicant/ BSNL. In the

judgment under review, this Court had already considered the

Government Resolution dated 30.04.2016 and Section 6(3) of the

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified

Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes

and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and

verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and held that the
                             *5*               review126&127o26 DB


statutory obligation to forward the caste claim to the Scrutiny

Committee was upon the appointing authority. The applicant

BSNL, therefore, seeks reconsideration of an issue which was

specifically considered and decided.


7.          As regards the appointment order dated 10.12.1991,

the judgment under review had recorded finding that there was

no material to establish that the respondents/ employees were

appointed against posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribe

category and that a mere entry of caste in the service record was

insufficient for that purpose. The present contention requires re-

appreciation of the appointment order and the material on record.

Such exercise is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. The

contention regarding Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1972 and Rule

61 of the BSNL CDA Rules also does not disclose any error

apparent on the face of the record. The applicant/ BSNL has not

demonstrated that the caste claim of the respondents/ employees

was false or invalid. The allegation of fraud, therefore, cannot be

treated as an established fact in the present review proceedings.


8.          Reliance upon the judgment in Chairman And

Managing Director, FCI vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, 2017 (8)
                             *6*              review126&127o26 DB


SCC 670, is also of no assistance. The consequences considered

in that case arise upon invalidation of the caste claim. In the

present case, as noticed in the judgment under review, the caste

claim of the respondents/ employees had not been adjudicated

during their service. Similarly, other decisions cited by the

learned advocate Shri Arora do not demonstrate any error

apparent in the judgment under review.


9.          The judgment under review had also relied upon

State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC

210, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pensionary

benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of statutory authority.

No provision or statutory order authorising withholding of the

respondents/ employees pensionary benefits in the facts of the

present case has been demonstrated.


10.         In view of the above, we are of the considered view

that the grounds raised in the Review Application essentially

seek rehearing of the writ petitions and reappreciation of the

material already considered by this Court. No new and important

matter, nor any patent error apparent on the face of the record,

has been established. We, therefore, find no ground to review the
                                  *7*             review126&127o26 DB


      judgment and order dated 20.04.2026.


      11.          Hence, both the Review Applications are dismissed.

      No order as to costs.


      12.          As far as both Civil Applications filed by the

      respondents/ employees for withdrawal of amount is concerned,

      in view of dismissal of the writ petitions on merits and also

      dismissal of the review applications today, both Civil

      Applications are allowed. The applicants/ employees are

      permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court along

      with accrued interest. However, the employees shall furnish

      usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar

      (Judicial) of this Court.




kps   (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)           (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)