1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 83 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railway, R/-0256a, Rail Bhawan, Rail Bhawan Road, New Delhi 110011 2 - South East Central Railway Through The General Manager Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001 3 - Deputy Chief Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 495001 4 - The Chief Project Manager Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Project Office, Block No. 5, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur- 492013 C.G. 5 - Senior Divisional Personnel Manager Divisional Office, Personal Department, South East Central Railway, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492008 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Abhishek Jain S/o Gendulal Jain Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Nayapara Bhaupratappur, P.S Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 494669 2 - Ku. Bharti Thakur D/o Ganjan Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kanhargaon Patwari Hlka No.04 Bhanupratapur P.S Bhanupratappur Utar Bastaer Kanker (C.G.) 494669 3 - Satish Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mulla Bhanuprataappur P.S Bhanupratappur Utter Baster Kanker (C.G) 494669 4 - Suresh Kumar Kavde S/o Shri Dayaram Kavde Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chougel Bhanuprataappur P.S Bhanupratappur Utter Baster Kanker (C.G.) 494669 5 - Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kanhargaon Patwari Hlka No. 04 Bhanupratapur P.S Bhaupratappur Utar Bastaer Kanker (C.G) 494669 6 - Harishankar S/o Late Shri Parmanand Aged About 18 Years Through Mother Malti Yadu R/o Village Kanhargaon Patwari Hlka No.04 Bhanupratapur P.S Bhanupratappur Utar Bastaer Kanker (C.G.) 494669 7 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh 490021 ... Respondent(s) HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.05.15 16:18:37 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 25.04.2025 Per Sachin Singh Rajput , J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This review petition under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 9043 of 2023. 3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that WPS No. 9043 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of order dated 28.07.2023 and 06.09.2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting Bilaspur C.G. (for short ‘ CAT’) and original application No. 203/00641/2020 and Review Application No. 24/2023 respectively. 4. Learned CAT vide its order dated 28.07.2023 disposed of the original application directing the petitioners herein to reconsider the claim of the respondents with regard to providing employment as per Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12.11.2007 followed by notification dated 08.04.2011. The direction was issued by the learned CAT in light of judgment of this Court passed in WPS No. 1349/2018 in the matter of South East Central Railways and others Vs. Yashvant and others decided on 03.04.2018. Against the said order, the Review Petition was filed by the petitioners herein was also dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2023. This Court vide its order dated 25.02.2025 dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners herein in WPS No. 9043/2023. 5. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an error apparent on the impugned judgment and the respondents are not entitled to 3 reconsider for the employment. Therefore, the review petition may be allowed and the order under impugned dated 25.02.2025 may be recalled. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no error apparent on record in the impugned order. The learned CAT has only directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for employment in light of judgment passed in Yashwant (supra), therefore, the review petition may be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The learned CAT has only directed the petitioners to reconsider the cases of the respondents in light of law laid in case of Yashwant (supra). The grounds which have been raised before this Court in this review petition appears to be the grounds which have already been agitated by the petitioners during the course of hearing of WPS No. 9043/2023, therefore, this Court did not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners while dismissing the WPS No. 9043/2023. 9. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter and also a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. 10. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due 4 diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. 11. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge H.ANSARI