1 2025:CGHC:51363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 294 of 2025  Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikas Pradhikaran Bhawan, Second Floor, Old P.H.Q. Campus, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Tarprit Kaur D/o Late Achal Singh, Aged About 28 Years Occupation Un-Employed, R/o New Rambhata, Jawahar Nagar, Raighar, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. General Administration Department Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Water Resource Department, Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Transport Department, Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6. Collector, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.16 16:09:08 +0530 2 For State : Mr. Trevenee Shankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15/10/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought recall/modification of the order dated 25.11.2024, passed in WPS No. 2617 of 2024. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that father of the respondent No. 1 was an employee of the review petitioner, who died in harness on 15.11.2018, at that time, the policy dated 19.07.2011 was in force. He would further submit that subsequent policy was issued with regard to compassionate appointment on 06.10.2023. He would contend that the claim of the respondent No. 1 was rejected in absence of sanctioned vacancy and he would not get benefit of subsequent policy or notification. He would further contend that once case of respondent No. 1 was considered on merits according to applicable policy there was no occasion to prefer subsequent petition. He would contend that in WPS No. 2617 of 2024 this Court has directed the Chief Secretary to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in CIDC or any Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Boards etc. if posts are lying vacant within a period of 90 days. It is argued that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right and the claim has to be decided according to policy prevailing on the date of death. He would pray to recall the order dated 25.11.2024. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 6. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as 4 under:- 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 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 limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 7. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and 5 ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 8. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 9. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 10. In WPS No. 2617 of 2024 and connected matters, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya and Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocates had marked their appearance for Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC). The claim of respondent No. 1 was 6 rejected by the respondent authority in absence of vacant posts with CIDC. It was submitted by the Advocates appearing for CIDC that if in future, a vacancy arises, the claim of the petitioner would be considered. It was also informed that matter was referred by the department to the the State to consider the claim of the petitioner against vacancy arising with the Municipal Corporations, Municipalities or Board etc., but no decision was taken. 11. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and submissions made by Advocates appearing for CIDC matter was disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to consider the claim of the respondent No. 1 afresh and the order impugned was quashed. 12. This Court decided WPS No.2617 of 2024 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record. The parties were afforded sufficient opportunity to make submission and submission made by Advocates appearing for CIDC was recorded verbatim. The review petitioner sought rehearing of writ petition under the disguise of review petition which is not permitted under the law. 13. Considering the above-discussed facts, no ground is made for review. Consequently, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant