1 2025:CGHC:59960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 413 of 2025 1. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Sipat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L. Area, Bishrampur, District Surguja, Now Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Motiram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Sonhat, Post Office, Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhatttisgarh Through Its Secretary, The State Rehabilitation Department , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. District Raipur C.G. 3. The Collector District Surguja, District Surguja (Ambikapur) C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahu, in person For State/Respondents : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy No. 2 & 3 Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 10/12/2025 1. The review petitioners have filed this petition for review of order passed in WPS No. 1625 of 2012 dated 06.11.2025, whereby following direction was SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.12.10 16:22:22 +0530 2 issued :- “The action of the SECL authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, all the orders issued in this regard are hereby quashed. The SECL authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment within a period of 30 days from today. The petitioner is agitating his legal and rightful claim since 2012 and prima facie it appears that he has been discriminated, therefore, the SECL authorities shall pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. 2. Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate would argue that there was no prayer in the writ petition for grant of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and in absence of such pleading and relief, such order was not anticipated. He would submit that an award was passed in the year 2002 and claim of the petitioner regarding employment was rejected thereafter pursuant to notification dated 30.09.1991. He would contend that immediately after filing of writ petition return was filed, and therefore, the delay in disposal of writ petition cannot be attributed to the review petitioners. He would submit that the amount of compensation Rs. 10,00,000/- is too harsh, therefore, the amount of compensation may be modified. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Though, no relief was sought in writ petition with regard to grant of compensation, but at the same time, this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can evaluate circumstances particularly violation of fundamental as well as legal rights of a person. It is a case where a letter was issued by the SECL authority on 30.09.1991 3 addressed to the Collector, but no decision was taken by the said authority till passing of award, and thereafter, an order was issued by the Collector and pursuant to said order the right of the employment of respondent No. 1/petitioner was closed. The respondent No. 1 herein wandered from pillar to post for his legal right, and therefore, this Court deemed it fit to compensate him and accordingly order was passed to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 6. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record to exercise powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 7. 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 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.” 8. 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 4 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 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. 9. 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.” 10. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 5 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.” 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, there is no mistake or error apparent on face of record. Accordingly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant