1 2025:CGHC:40461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 52 of 2025 Kullu Prasad Upadhyay S/o Dhanu Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 51 Years Working As Head Constable And Posted At Police Control Room Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2590 of 2023 on 06.05.2024 wherein this Court has passed the following order which is as under:- 6. To resolve the issue it is expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of Police Regulation, which reads as under:- SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 12:36:14 +0530 2 “Para 260 of the Police Regulation : Re-enlistment. —I.G’s Sanction for: -A police officer who has resigned or been discharged maybe re-enlisted with the sanction of the Inspector General who may, at his discretion, declare that the previous service of the applicant will be counted for his pension. A declaration of this nature will only be made if the circumstances of the resignation or the previous history of the applicant show that he is deserving of the concession.” 7. Looking to the grievances raised by the petitioner, it is expedient for this Court to extract order dated 23.07.2001 passed by the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, regarding reappointment of the petitioner, which reads as under:- तद्त्परांत भू तप र्व आरांक्षक क ल्लू प्रसाद् उपध्याया द्वारां पनः सार्व में लिलूया जानः हेत मेंझे प्रस्तत अभ्यार्वद्नः एर्व प्रकरांण सा साबंधि)त अभिभूलूखों, क अर्वलू-कनः / परां.क्षण किकया गया । परां.क्षण परां आर्वद्क क2 परिरांर्वरिरांक परिरांस्थि5कितया, क- दृधि7गत रांखोंत हुया एर्व साहेनःभू कितप र्वक किर्वचारां करांत हुया पलिलूसा रांग्या लूशनः क प<रां-260 में प्रद्त्त प्रर्व)नः क अन्तगत भू तप र्व आरांक्षक कनःक 11.06 क ल्लू प्रसाद् उपध्याया जिजालू उज्जै<नः क- आरांक्षक क पद् परां पनः भूरांत. किकया जात हे<। प र्व सार्व पन्शनः क लिलूया शधिमेंलू क2 जार्वग. । 8. From bare perusal of the Regulation 260, it is quite vivid that the Inspector General can declare that the previous service of the applicant will be counted for his pension and order of reinstatement also reveals that the past services of the petitioner will be counted for the purpose of pension only. As such, the contention raised by the petitioner that his past services should counted for all other service benefits including annual increment, promotion, seniority, is deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order has preferred WA No. 7 of 2025 wherein it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant has made a prayer regarding his pay scale, holidays and previous serice pension with other consequentlay beneift within stipulated time, but single Judge has passed the order only with respect to pension of past service and as such he prays that 3 the prsent writ appeal be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach learned learned single Judge, accordingly, Hon’ble Division Bench has dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Thereafter. The petitioner has filed this review petition mainly contending that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of his previous service as per Rules 260 of Police Regulation and also by letter dated 06.09.2021 issued by respondent No.2. It has also been contended that the respondent authority are continuously ignoring various representation of the petitioner by not complying with the letter dated 06.09.2021. 3. The State has filed their written wherein it has been contended that as per Police Regulation 260, the Inspector General can declare the previous service of the appellant will be counted for his pension and order of reinstatement also reveals that the past service of the petitioner will be counted for pension only, as such the contention raised by the petitioner that the past service should be counted for all other service benefit including annual increment, promotion, seniority is deserves to be rejected and would pray for rejection of the review petition. It has also been contended that the scope of review is very limited and can be reviewed from discloser of new facts or material which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and could not be produced by him at time of passing of the order. It is also contended that the petitioner has not produced any such material on record, therefore, review petition deserves to be dismissed. It has also been contended that from the perusal of the averments made in the 4 review petition it is reflected that the petitioner intent to raise the grounds which are beyond the scope of power of review. 4. From perusal of the order which was sought to be reviewed it is quite vivid that the petitioner has intent to make a new ground which is beyond the preview of review. Even other wise, from perusal of annexure P/1 of original petition dated 23.07.2001, it is quite vivid, that no specific order with regard to counting of past service for other benefits have been mentioned in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has also not challenged the order dated 23.07.2001. On the contrary, he has prayed for issuance of direction to respondent authorities to comply with letter dated 06.09.2021 which is not relevant for the present issue raised in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner would submit that he may be granted liberty favour of the petitioner to pursue his representation before the authority. 5. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. With this observations, the review petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh