Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) THIS review application has been placed before us pursuant to the order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice in view of the observations of learned Single Judge in order dated 5.9.2011.
(2.) THIS review application is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2004 passed in CWP No. 13987 of 1996. The applicant filed the above mentioned writ petition claiming equal pay for equal work. The writ petition filed by the applicants was heard with bunch of Letters Patent Appeals and writ petitions involving identical questions by a Division Bench of this Court and all the Letters Patent Appeals and writ petitions were disposed of vide the judgment under review. The claim of the Petitioners was rejected and writ petitions dismissed. This review application has been filed in the year 2011 i.e. after a lapse of more than six years. Only ground for invoking review jurisdiction of this Court and for rectification of the judgment impugned is that a similar writ petition being CWP No. 13330 of 1994 titled as Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. has been subsequently decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 15.5.2009 holding that the responsibilities of Surveyors of Soil Conservation Department were identical to the Surveyors in the Irrigation Department and they are entitled to equal wages. It is further the case of the applicants that the judgment of learned Single Judge has been upheld in L.P.A No. 380 of 2010 decided on 18.3.2010 and affirmed with the dismissal of S.L.P on 8.7.2010. Applicants claim to be similarly situated. We have heard Mr. Patwalia, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants.
(3.) INDISPUTEDLY , the applicants suffered the judgment dated 13.10.2004. The judgment has attained finality. Only ground for invoking the review jurisdiction is that subsequently in another case a different view has been taken by this Court. We are afraid this can be a ground for invoking review jurisdiction. Review under Order 47 Rule I is permissible on the grounds contemplated by the said provision which inter alia include error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new facts etc. None of the conditions envisaged under Order 47 Rule I exists warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Any change in law does not ipso facto provides a ground for review.;