1 2025:CGHC:27766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 135 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer State Bridge Construction, Public Sorks Department, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - Rasid Mohammed S/o Late Sharif Mohammed Aged About 58 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Behind Gulab Colony, Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/06/2025 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.29 19:18:51 +0530 2 1. The present is a petition for review of the order dated 4.2.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.966 of 2025 (Rasid Mohammed v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with directions. 2. As stated in the review petition, by suppressing relevant facts, petitioner Rasid Mohammed filed WPS No.966 of 2025, wherein, this Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants/State, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 4.2.2025. 3. The order dated 4.2.2025 clearly shows that learned counsel for the State was heard and his arguments were recorded as under: “4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been submitted that since the service of the petitioner was already been terminated and he was reinstated by the Labour Court, there is gap in the service as such, the petitioner can not claim regularization.” 4. Therefore, the contention that this Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants/State, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 4.2.2025, is not correct. The order dated 4.2.2025 has been passed on merits of the case after considering the rival submissions put-forth by learned 3 counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the record of the case. 5. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants/State. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh