Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55779 (CHH)

SHIVCHANDRA SAHA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

REVP/326/2025 · 2025-11-02

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 326 of 2025 1 - Shivchandra Saha S/o Shri Gosai Saha Aged About 61 Years Upper Division Teacher Mata Rukmani Kanya Ashram, Dimrapal, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes And Backward Classes Welfare Department, D. K. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Tribal Department, District Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, District Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Mata Rukhmani Seva Sansthan Through Its Secretary, Mata Rukhmani Seva Sansthan Dimarapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate For R3 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 03.11.2025 1. The present Review Petition has been filed the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in WPS KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.11.03 17:41:22 +0530 2 No. 4284/2016 to the extent that arrears of difference of pay may be paid to the petitioner from 19-12-2003. 2. On going through the order which is sought to be reviewed herein, I am of the view of that the order has been passed after thoroughly considering all the aspects of the matter. The petitioner has not been able to bring into notice any new facts, which has not been considered earlier. 3. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 4. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh