1 2025:CGHC:15944-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 72 of 2025 1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Postmaster General Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur C.G. 3. The Superintendent Of Railway Mail Service Chhattisgarh Circle, Ganj Post Office, R.P. Division, Raipur C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay S/o Late Shri Dau Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 61 Years Retired Sorting Assistant, R.M.S.- R.P. Division, Durg (Chhattisgarh), R/o. Mig-17, Geetanji Enclave, Ring Road No. - 2, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Shashank Mohan Sharma S/o Late Shri Nianjan Sharma Aged About 61 Years Retired Sorting Assistant, R.M.S.- R.P. Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Om Prakash Pandey S/o Late Shri Krishna Pandey Aged About 60 Years Sorting Assistant, R.M.S.- R.P. Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 4. Pitamber Kumar Sakhariya S/o Shri Dauwa Ram Sakharia Aged About 59 Years Sorting Assistant, R.M.S.- R.P. Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.08 18:00:09 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Baghel and Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate. Petition for Review Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order Passed on 04.04.2025 Per Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This review petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking review of order dated 03.10.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1912/2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the decision of this Court granting consequential benefit of service rendered by the respondents before the date of their regular absorption in the sorting Assistant cadre is not sustainable and he has placed reliance in the matter of Jagrit Mazdoor Union and Ors. Etc. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Reported in 1990 Supp SCC 113 and also in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179. Therefore, the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by this Court is liable to be reconsidered/reviewed accordingly. 3. Learned State counsel strongly opposes the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the order passed by this Court. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and and re- appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has 3 been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others. reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 6. In the light of above judgments, the grounds raised by the petitioner/applicant in review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Sourabh P.