2025:JHHC:10581 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.125 of 2024 1. Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Kotwali, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., having its Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Kotwali, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The General Manager (MP&IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., having its Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Kotwali, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its Office at Barka Sayal, PO Sayal “D”, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 5. The Staff Officer (Personnel), Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its Office at Barka Sayal, PO Sayal “D”, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 6. The Project Officer, Urimari Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., Office at Urimari, PO PS Urimari, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand. … … Petitioners Versus Kuni Devi wife of Late Chamtu Munda, resident of at Raligarha, MPI Dhowra, PO Raligarha, PS Giddi ‘A’, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate ---- 02/07.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By way of filing this Civil Review Application, the petitioners seek review of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2774 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the said writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-opposite party was allowed. 3. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2774 of 2021 allowed the writ petition in the following manner:- "11. Since the monetary compensation is to be paid on account of death of an employee and therefore, the cause of action would arise on the date when the death of an employee occurs and in that view of the matter, the wife of the deceased employee will be entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death and not from the date of application. -: 1 :- 2025:JHHC:10581 12. Thus, the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 passed pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No.7307 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the General Manager (P&IR) to pass an appropriate order in respect of payment of monetary compensation to the petitioner from the date of death of the deceased employee till the petitioner had attained the age of 60 years, subject to the condition that all the remaining conditions are fulfilled by the petitioner. Aforesaid order should be passed within a period of six weeks. If it is found that there are no other legal impediment, the amount should be transmitted in the account of the petitioner within two weeks. Amount so payable shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum. 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayer for review, argued that the monetary compensation is payable to the widow till she attains the age of 60 years. Since, the writ petitioner-opposite party had filed the application for monetary compensation after attaining the age of 60 years, it amounts to taking undue advantage of prolonged delay in submitting the application for grant of monetary compensation in terms of N.C.W.A. 9.5.0. The whole purpose for grant of monetary compensation to dependents/family members of deceased employee is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family members. Therefore, the writ petitioner-opposite party cannot take the advantage of availing this advantage when the application for the same was filed 13 years after the death of the employee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of M/s Eastern Coal Fields Limited & Ors. Vs. Dukhni Bhuiya (Civil Appeal No. 6730 of 2021) wherein it was observed that the amount of compensation payable to the wife of deceased workman three years prior to filing writ petition would suffice as there is delay in filing writ petition for grant of monetary compensation. 5. After going through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that subsequent orders cannot be a ground to review. 6. The order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.6730/2023, which has been placed before me, according to me, is passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The same being passed after the order dated -: 2 :- 2025:JHHC:10581 28.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2774 of 2021, was not brought before this Court while passing the said order dated 28.02.2023. 7. It is a settled principal in law that the monetary compensation is to be paid consequent to death of deceased employee. Therefore, the cause of action would be on the date when the death of deceased employee will occur and in that view of the matter, the wife of the deceased employee or the husband as the case may be, will be entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death and not from the date of application. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 657 of 2018 (Gangia Devi vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.), has held that the monetary compensation has to be paid from the date of death of an employee. “7. ......Since the monetary compensation is to be paid in consequence of death of deceased employee and therefore, the cause of action would be on the date when the death of deceased employee will occur and in that view of the matter, the wife of the deceased employee or the husband as the case may be, will be entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death and not from the date of application. The appellant-writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Putul Devi Vrs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2012) (1) JCR 436(Jharkhand), wherein also the monetary of compensation has been decided to be paid from the date of death. ......” 9. As far as the scope of review is concerned, it is pertinent to place reliance on the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of instances, wherein, it has been held that in order to have a judgment open to review there must be a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal versus State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362) has held: “10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that 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. [Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25 : AIR 1965 -: 3 :- 2025:JHHC:10581 SC 845] 11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , this Court made very pivotal observations : (SCC p. 719, para 9) “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.”” (emphasis supplied) 11. In view of what has been held and observed above, I find no merit in this Civil Review Application, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. This Civil Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02 -: 4 :-