1 2025:CGHC:36932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No.182 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg,(Respondent No. 1 In Wp) 2 - Director Personnel South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G.(Respondent No. 2 In Wp) 3 - Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, West Jhagrakhand Colliery, Hasdeo Area, Teh. - Manendragarh, Distt. Korea C.G. (Respondent No. 3 In W P) Petitioners versus 1 - Subhawati W/o Babulal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bishunpura, P.O. Parsaon, Ps Lalganj, Distt Basti U.P. (Petitioner No. 1 In W P) 2 - Guddu S/o Babulal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bishunpura, P O Parsaon, P S Lalganj, Distt. Basti (U P) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 29/07/2025 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment/order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2024 in WPS No.6182/2024, whereby the petitioners were directed to consider the claim of the respondent No.2 for compassionate appointment, if found eligible. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the whole purpose of granting dependent employment at such a belated stage i.e. after 23 years from the date the employee was missing, after 12 years from the date of decree of civil death has come to an end and the family has survived such a long period. As per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement, the dependent employment is given in the cases where the employee "die/death" during the course of employment while in service and not in the cases of civil death and termination. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased employee was terminated in the year 2005 and was not in service. Therefore, he prays for review of the order under review, whereby the petitioners were directed by this Court to consider the claim of the respondent No.2 for compassionate appointment, if found eligible. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer made by the petitioners’ counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment under review. 5. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely 3 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 in law as has 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. The grounds raised by the review petitioners 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. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala