1 2025:CGHC:27955-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 152 of 2025 Satyendra Bahadur Singh S/o Vishnu Pratap Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o Mahima Nagar Word No. 11, Sirgitti, Tahsil Bilha, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (C.G.), At Present Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.). 2 - The Secretary Finance D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (C.G.), 3 - The Director Treasury Audit And Accounts, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Audit And Pension, Division Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.27 13:10:29 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was retired from his services after attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, the respondent department deducted an amount of Rs.7,03,547/- from the gratuity amount of the petitioner on the ground of excess payment. Petitioner challenged the same vide W.P.(S) No. 1372/2023, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. When claim of the petitioner was rejected then he again filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 2218/2023 by stating that the order of recovery was issued by the respondents without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by praying reimbursement of the entire deducted gratuity amount along with interest @ 18% per annum, which was also disposed of by directing the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing claim of the petitioner be decided. Due to dissatisfaction from the order of the learned Single Judge, petitioner has filed the Writ Appeal No. 103/2024, whereby this Court was pleased enough to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2218/2023, which 3 means relief clause relating to interest @ 18% was also allowed but due to not mentioning the same department has though disburse the gratuity amount of Rs. 7,03,547 but is not paying interest over same from the date of retirement till actual payment. In the light of the same, petitioner has preferred this review petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed therefore he was of the opinion that the entire claim including the interest past @ 18% has also been allowed by the Hon'ble Division bench, therefore he filed representation before the department claiming gratuity including interest @18% in the entire deducted amount from the gratuity vide application dated 28.10.2024 but the department has only disbursed the gratuity amount on 09.01.2025 but have not disbursed the interest over the gratuity as claimed in the writ petition. When the petitioner enquired about the same, then the department has denied interest part by stating that there is no spur about the same in the entire order-sheet, whereas this Hon'ble Court has allowed all the relief claimed in the writ petition bearing registration No. W.P.(S) No. 2218/2023 including interest @18% per annum by upholding the appellants position by allowing the appeal in full. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the matter of similarly situated candidate, this Hon'ble Court has 4 pleased to allow the Writ Appeal No.762/2024 vide order dated 19.11.2024 and was pleased enough to direct the respondent department to disburse the entire amount along with interest @ rate of 18% with effect from the date of retirement till actual payment since deduction itself was 'Void Abinitio'. In the instant case also, deduction of Rs. 7,03,547/- from the account of the petitioner from the gratuity amount was void from inception in the light of various dictums passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, therefore, petitioner is entitled for interest over the entire deducted amount with interest from the date of deduction till final realization/payment of the same as relief claimed in the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have perused the impugned order under review. 7. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 8. 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 re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible 5 in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 9. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this 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 impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692