1 2025:CGHC:60133-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 276 of 2025 Smt. Rampati Devi W/o Late Shri R.N. Chauhan Aged About 61 Years (Mentally Unfit), Represented Through Her Son Sandeep Kumar Chouhan, R/o M Q/ A-40 Balgi Colony, At And P.O. Balgi, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The Managing Co Director, S.E.C.L. Headquarter Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Chief General Manager Through The General Manager S.E.C.L. Korba Area, District Korba, C.G 3 - Mine Manager South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Balgi Project Surakchar, Korba, District- Korba, C.G 4 - Chief Medical Services South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Headquarters Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G 5 - Chief Medical Officer South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Banki And Surakachar Hospital, Korba, District Korba, C.G 6 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Balgi Project Surakchar Korba, District Korba, C.G 7 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Headquarters Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G ... Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.10 18:39:00 +0530 2 For Petitioner Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.12.2025 1. By the present review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 10/09/2024 passed by this Court in WA No.572/2024. 2. The case of the review petitioner is that initially she was appointed as General Majdoor in SECL since 1991. According to her, she was suffering from Schizophrenia and as such, applied for voluntarily retirement. Subsequently, she moved an application for grant of permission to appear before the Medical Board so that she could be declared as medically unfit and her dependent Son could be given compassionate appointment. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 31/05/2019. For the intervening period from 20/05/2018 to 31/05/2019, the respondents have granted special leave but salary has not been paid to her, for which, she made several representations. When no action has been taken, she approached this Court by filing WPS No.1909/2022 claiming full salary with interest for the period from 10/08/2016 to 04/07/2018 and 06/01/2019 to 31/05/2019. 3 The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22/04/2024 holding thus at para 6:- “6. This Court has gone through sanction letter dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P/17) which has been annexed by the petitioner herself by which special leave was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P/15) from 05.07.2018 for three months and vide order dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P/17) from 05.10.2018 for further three months. It is quite vivid that whenever the petitioner was subjected to medical examination cteze and it was found unfit to assume duty, the leave has been granted. Further contention of the petitioner that for the intervening period, she moved an application for medical examination which was not allowed to make medical examination, therefore, the action of the respondents/SECL is arbitrary and suffers from malafide. This submission was vehemently objected by learned counsel for the respondents/SECL and would submit that whenever petitioner has moved an application for medical examination, it was considered and allowed. The petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate that she has applied for medical examination but refused by the respondents/SECL. Even otherwise, it is for the 4 petitioner to appear for medical examination to get leave. The further submission made by the petitioner that centre was changed therefore, she could not be appeared for medical examination, it seems to be after thought story and requires evidence to substantiate, which cannot be considered by this Court while hearing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 3. Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ appeal bearing WA No.572/2024 which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 10/09/2024 holding thus at paras 8, 9 and 10. “8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein after going through sanction letter dated 16.10.2018 which has been annexed by the writ petitioner herself by which special leave was granted to the writ petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2018 from 05.07.2018 for three months and vide order dated 16.10.2018 from 05.10.2018 for further three months. It is quite vivid that whenever the writ petitioner was subjected to medical examination and it was found unfit to assume duty, the leave has been granted. Further contention of the writ petitioner that for the 5 intervening period, she moved an application for medical examination which was not allowed to make medical examination, therefore, the action of the respondents/SECL is arbitrary and suffers from mala fide. The writ petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate that she has applied for medical examination but refused by the respondents/SECL. Even otherwise, it is for the writ petitioner to appear for medical examination to get leave. The further submission made by the writ petitioner that centre was changed therefore, she could not be appeared for medical examination, it seems to be after thought story and requires evidence to substantiate, which cannot be considered. As such, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed. 9. Having gone through the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we do not perceive any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as would warrant any indulgence by this Court in the present intra court appeal. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 6 4. Thereagainst, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C. No.11069/2025) which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 01/04/2025 reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer review of the judgment dated 10/09/2024 passed in WA No.572/2024, in respect of relief No.10.1 of the writ petition. Thus, this review petition. 5. For the sake of convenience, relief Clause 10.1 of WPS No.1909/2022 is quoted below:- (1) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the full salary along with necessary interest for the intervening period between 10.08.2016 to 04.07.2018 and 06.01.2019 to 31.05.2019” 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the respondents have relied on the provision of National Coal Wages Agreement which was not applicable and on the basis of the same the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the Division Bench. As per NCWA, 10th agreement which has come into force with effect from 1/7/2016 stipulates that that as per Clause 6.5.2 of the NCWA, 10th agreement, half pay leave is to be given to employees suffering from Brain Disease/ Disorder till they are declared fit by the Company Medical Board and thus, due to implementation of wrong provision of law applicable to the petitioner, the error has crept in which is error apparent on face of law. He submits that that the half pay leave 7 was admissible to the petitioner from 10/8/2015 to 9/8/2016 owing to medical condition of the petitioner and thereafter, the respondents has not filed any documents to show that the medical condition of the petitioner improved and hence, as per the NCWA, 10th agreement, the petitioner was entitled for half pay leave since from 5/7/2018 to 4/10/2018 the half pay leave was given to the petitioner fortifying the fact that there was no improvement in medical condition of the petitioner and hence, treating the period of absence as unauthorized absence without issuing the show cause notice and without holding any enquiry is illegal, perverse and against the provision of law. Learned counsel further submits that since the half pay leave was sanctioned to the petitioner and the same can be withheld by the respondent authorities only when the employee has been declared fit by the Company Medical Board or any hospital which was not the case of the respondents and hence, due to application of wrong provision of law, the order has been passed and hence, the same is amenable under the review jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the writ appeal, this Court had already considered submission of the petitioner with respect to the prayer 10.1 made by the petitioner and after considering the argument advanced by the petitioner, this Court observed that the petitioner is not entitled to get the same relief because this Court find that the petitioner was granted special leave vide order dated 16/10/2018 to 5/7/2018 8 and 16/10/2018 to 5/10/2018. The petitioner whenever appeared before the medical board and she was found unfit to assume duty, the leave has been granted. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant review petition, in para 6 and 7 it is mentioned that, in the reply of the SECL dated 13/06/2022 that the petitioner was paid half month salary from 10/08/2015 to 9/8/2016 and from 05/7/2018 to 4/10/2018 in view of the clause 6.5.2 (a) and (b) of NCWA as the said provision half pay leave can be granted for a period of 6 month twice maximum for the period of one year and the same has already been granted and in this regard he would submit that the above reply was given by the respondent on the basis of NCWA-IX. And NCWA-X, which was effective from 01/07/2011 to 30/06/2016 and 01/07/2017 to 30/06/2021 respectively. According to him, the petitioner was paid all her admissible dues which she was entitled as per national Coal wage agreement and NCWA-IX and NCWA-X was applicable at the time of claim of the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 9. The review petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that due to application of wrong provision of law, the writ petition/writ appeal has been dismissed. According to the petitioner, the provisions of NCWA-X will not applicable in her case. Whereas, in the reply filed by the respondent/SECL in the instant review petition, they categorically submitted that the case of 9 the petitioner has been considered on the basis of NCWA-IX and NCWA-X which was effective from 01/07/2011 to 30/06/2016 and 01/07/2017 to 30/06/2021, respectively. According to the SECL by applying the provisions contained in NCWA-IX & NCWA-X, all the admissible dues have already been paid to the petitioner. 10. From bare perusal of the material available on record, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate that she has applied for medical examination but refused by the respondents/SECL. Even otherwise, it is for the petitioner to appear for medical examination to get leave. By filing the instant review petition, the petitioner is trying to reargue the matter, which is not at all permissible in the review jurisdiction. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 11. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely 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 10 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). 12. The ground raised by the review petitioner 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 order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 13. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep