Review Application Rejected; Court Affirms Limited Scope of Review Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution
The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed its decision to grant ex-gratia compensation to Smt. Krishna Singh, the widow of a Head Constable in the U.P. Police who succumbed to COVID-19 while performing his duties. The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, dismissed the State of U.P.'s review application, emphasizing the limited scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The case, Civil Misc Review Application No. 409 of 2024, sought to challenge a previous judgment delivered on 02.11.2023, which directed the State to release Rs. 50 lakhs in compensation to the petitioner. This directive was issued in line with a Government Order dated 11.04.2020, which entitles dependents of employees engaged in essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic to compensation.
Despite the State's assertion that the financial implications of the order would burden the exchequer, the court held firm on its stance, citing precedents where similarly situated individuals were awarded compensation. The judges highlighted that the scope of review is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or preventing miscarriage of justice, and not for reappraising evidence or substituting a different view.
In its judgment, the court underscored the importance of the Government Order, which deems employees engaged in essential services during the pandemic as being on COVID duty, thus entitling their dependents to compensation without any artificial distinctions. The court pointed out that the State had already extended similar benefits to others under the same Government Order, making it unjustifiable to deny the petitioner.
The court referenced multiple precedents, including previous judgments from the Division Bench that supported the petitioner's claim. These judgments had uniformly recognized the duty of various departments and employees, including police and essential service workers, in combating the pandemic, thereby entitling them to the benefits of the Government Order.
The review application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the grounds for review—such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record—were not applicable in this case. The court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and should not be used to reargue the case.
This judgment is significant as it reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding the rights of individuals in the face of bureaucratic challenges and underscores the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, ensuring that justice is served without undue delay.
Bottom line:-
The scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or preventing miscarriage of justice. It cannot be used as an appeal or for reappraisal of evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, Article 226; Government Order dated 11.04.2020
State of UP v. Smt. Krishna Singh, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892955
