2025:JHHC:28094 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 8 of 2025 --- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Multi Project, Chandil, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District Sighbhum East, Jharkhand. ….Respondents/Petitioners Versus 1. Sahdeo Ram, s/o Late Khakhnu Ram, r/o Village- Nagar Untari (Banshidhar), P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District a. Garhwa, Jharkhand. 2. Surendra Prasad Sinha, s/o Late Shambhu Prasad Sinha, r/o Village - Mohrahi, P.O. & P.S. Chhatarpur, District Palamau, Jharkhand. 3. Suleman Oraon, s/o Sri Nema Oraon, r/o Village- Champa, P.O. & P.S. Mahuatand, District Latehar. Jharkhand 4. Halkhori Prajapati, s/o Late Goman Prajapati, r/o Village - Chandarpur, P.O. & P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand. 5. Harinarayan Pandey, s/o Late Jagarnath Pandey, r/o Village- Maghodhári, P.O & P.S Lesliganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Baijnath Singh, s/o Sri Late Bindeshwari Singh, r/o Village-Kot, P.O. & P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau. Jharkhand. 7. Santu Ram, s/o Late Mewa Ram, r/o Village- Adhoura, P.O. Adhoura, P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. 8. Mahendra Nath Upadhyay, s/o Late Janeshwar Upadhyay, r/o Village - Putuwagarh, P.O. Chhecha, PS. Barwadih. District Latehar, Jharkhand. 9. Lalji Prasad Yadav, s/o Late Modi Prasad Yadav, r/o Village - Khura, P.O. & P.S. Barwadih, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. 10. Indradeo Mehtar, s/o Late Bipat Mehtar, r/o Village - Nawa Khas, P.O. & P.S. Nawa Jaipur, District Palamau, Jharkhand. ……Petitioners/Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C to AAG-III For the Respondents: M/s. Saurabh Shekhar, Sonam, Anurag Kumar, Advocates --- C.A.V. ON 22.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 10 /09/2025 2025:JHHC:28094 2 2. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners herein assailed the impugned order by saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. It appears that the Respondents-Petitioners herein have raised the issue about the findings of learned Writ Court and argued that the case of appointees of work charge establishment and that of the daily wagers appointed prior to regularization are different and not the same. It has also been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no intention to give the benefit of past services to the employees and the direction was limited to mere regularization of the services of the employees engaged on daily wages basis. Ld. Counsel thereafter have given reference of a case of Ram Prasad Singh, reported in (2005)3 JLJR, 38 (Full Bench). This issue has been dealt with by the Writ Court in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, wherein in this regard a reference of the judgment in the case of S. Sumnayan & Ors. Vs. Liminiri1 has been made. The Writ Court has also distinguished the judgment cited by the State, who is before this Court under Review Jurisdiction. 1 (2010) 6 SCC 791 2025:JHHC:28094 3 4. As far as law of review is concerned; it is now well settled that the interference could be attracted only in case where an apparent error or a new fact may have crept after the judgment has been passed. In the present case, there is no new fact that was not in the knowledge of the parties, at the time of passing of the impugned order, placed on record. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that any of the facts have been missed. The order/judgment is a speaking order and deals with every aspect of the matter. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer2 have enunciated certain guidelines for review. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below: “16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” Emphasis Supplied 5. As aforesaid, an error on the face of record must be such an error which should not require any detail hearing 2 (2024) 2 SCC 362 2025:JHHC:28094 4 on the points and it should be prominent and instantaneous. Even if, a judgment is erroneous, review is not permissible. As aforesaid, Ld. Counsel for the Review- Petitioner has only argued that the case of appointees of work charge establishment and that of the daily wagers appointed prior to regularization are different and not the same. 6. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, the instant review application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk A.F.R/N.A.F.R