1 2025:CGHC:18012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 90 of 2025 Arun Kumar Sai S/o Late D.G. Sai Aged About 61 Years Occupation- Government Employee, Superintending Engineer (Civil) At Water Resources Circle, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Shri Rajesh Sukumar Toppo The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board (21.04.2025) 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for reviewing the order dated 22.03.2025 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 163/2025, passed by this Court. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court vide WPS No. 6858 of 2024 before this Court in which this Court has specifically mentioned in para 01 of the order dated 23.10.2024 that the name of the petitioner has 2 been placed at Serial No. 01 in the seniority list and Serial No. 06 in the gradation list and also the name of Shri Satish Kumar Tikam is mentioned at Serial No. 26 in the gradation list. This court has specifically directed to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner and shall consider the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of the represenation. In compliance of the which the petitioner has already made an additional representation on 05.11.2024 before the respondent by narrating the entire facts, grounds and legal position. 3. He contended that the respondent has deliberately not decided the representation of the petitioner in which he has clearly mentioned that Satish Kumar Tikam is a junior most employee and he has no right to hold the post of current charge of Chief Engineer. He further contended that this court has failed to appreciate the entire facts and grounds raised by the petitioner, hence which comes under the definition of error apparent on the face of the record and all the grievance of the petitioner has not been considered and without perusing the document that is Annexure R-1 dated 18.02.2025. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by this Court in Contempt Case © No. 163 of 2025 vide order dated 22.03.2025 is liable to be recalled and hear the said contempt petition afresh by granting hearing opportunity to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the without going into the legality of the facts and circumstances, this present review petition is not maintainable . He submits that in compliance of the directions of this Court the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the answering respondent authorities and accordingly after calling the report from the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, the answering respondent has 3 passed the order dated 18.02.2025 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered and decided accordingly as per the circular and policy of the State govt. (Annexure R-01) 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On 23.10.2024 WPS No. 6858 of 2024 was disposed of with the following conclusion:- 4. As the grievance of petitioner is with respect to posting on higher post as Incharge to junior to him in gradation list and in this regard as per submission of learned counsel for petitioner State Government as also the Chief Secretary has issued circular. Petitioner has already submitted representation before the Chief Engineer (Annexure P-7), which is still pending for consideration. However, the order Annexure P-1 is passed by respondent no. 1, Secretary, therefore, petitioner is permitted to submit representation before respondent no. 1 raising all the grounds as raised in this petition. In the even, petitioner submits representation, the concerned authority shall consider and decided the same expeditiously preferably within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 7. After the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6858 of 2024 the petitioner made a representation vide order dated 31.10.2024 and thereafter on 10.01.2025 petitioner made reminder application before the respondent. On 17.01.2025 the petitioner made application before the respondent under RTI Act to provide information. 8. Petitioner in view of the above filed a contempt case bearing no. 4 163 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2025 where it was stated that no deliberate contempt is made out as the order passed by this court has been complied with. However if the petitioner is still aggrieved may challenge the order passed by the contemnor by way of appropriate remedy available to him under the law. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, it is pertinent that the representation has already been decided by the respondent authority. Hence the present review petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. 10. Therefore, the instant review petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza