1 2025:CGHC:56049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 375 of 2025 1 - Baleshwar Kumar S/o Late Shri Dukhi Kumar Aged About 51 Years R/o Jarhi Colony, House No. 345, Urja Nagar, District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager Personnel And Administration S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, District -Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager (West) Recruitment Welfare S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For S.E.C.L : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. The present Review Petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Review Petition under Section 114(a) R/W Order 47(a) of the C.P.C., with humble prayer as to review the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in WPC No. 4279/2025 passed by this Court in which in para 9 it has been ordered for penal rent, the 2 same is not mentioned in the standing order of the quarter allotment and the permission of possession is permissible during the pendency of proceeding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the respondent no. 3 relating to eviction of the petitioner from his allotted residential house. Vide order dated 12/08/2025 this Hon'ble Court passed an order by which the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with certain directions in para 7 of the judgment and 9 of the order which are as under:- 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case further considering the facts that the departmental appeal is still pending before the competent authority, the respondent no. 2 and 3 are directed to decide the appeal expeditiously as soon as possible preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. 9. Meanwhile no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner subject to payment of panel rent as per rule. The copy of the order is filed herewith as Annexure P-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the applicable rules of the respondent no. 1 and 2 relating to the company's quarter. In clause 25.4 the workmen is entitled to be continued in possession till the proceeding is decided in CGIT (Chhattisgarh Industrial Tribunal) or any Court. Apart from no any provision has been prescribed for panel rent. The rules regarding the company's quarter are as under:- 25.1 Workmen who have been allotted company's quarter shall observe all rules, regulations and conditions to be made by the company from time to time concerning the use by the workmen of such quarters in consultation with the union. Similarly the rules for allotment of quarters 3 shall be framed by the company in consultation with the union. 25.2 Such workmen shall observe all instructions and orders issued by the management in consultation with the union for the maintenance of sanitation, cleanliness and public health. 25.3 Addition or alteration or erection of any temporary or permanent shed shall not be made without the written permission of the competent authority. 25.4 The use of company's quarter is conditional on the workmen being in service of the company. However, where case pertaining to the concerned worker is pending before CGIT till the case is decided by the CGIT or where the management prefers an appeal against the AWARD of the CGIT, till the case is decided by the Hon'ble Court of Law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after passing of the order by this Court dated 12/08/2025 was submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authority. But, till date the appeal has not been decided by the respondent no. 1 and 2. On the other hand they have issued notice demanding panel rent vide Annexure P-3. The petitioner was illegally dismissed from the service without conducting regular departmental enquiry/issuance of any show cause notice. Which was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. On hearing the protective order was passed in the favor of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that after filing of the Writ petition, the MCC was filed as to modify the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. Vide Annexure P/5, the MCC bearing no. 319/2024 was decided on 10/07/2025 with directions. After passing of the order i.e. Annexure P-5, the representation was submitted by the Co- employes (Deepak Prasad) before the respondent no. 1 and 2 but, till date the same has not been decided Annexure P-6. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as there is no provision of imposing panel rent as well as the possession of the allotted residential house is permissible during the pendency of the proceedings so, the issuance of the notice Annexure P-3 is contrary to the standing orders of the respondent no. 1 to 3 but, the same has been issued referring to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. So, the petitioner is not having any option except to file this review petition before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner has been illegally dismissed from the service by the respondents in the year 2008, all the amounts as deducted from the salary of the petitioner as per applicable rules has been detained by the respondents. Vide the order passed by this Hon'ble Court the notice Annexure P-3 has been issued by the respondent whenever there is no such clause in the standing order of the respondents. So, the petitioner humbly prayed as to modify the order and delete the para 9 from the order dated 12/08/2025 relating to imposing panel rent. 8. Learned counsel for respondents submits that only in order to avoiding the compliance of the order of this Hon'ble High Court in respect of paying the penal rent of company's quarter as per order dated 12-08- 2025, the applicant willfully and deliberately has filed the review petition for recalling the final order without any legal ground after receiving the letter dated 27-09-2025 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay the penal rent of the company's quarters. At the very outset, the present review petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed for the reason that, the departmental appeal of the petitioner 5 has already been decided by the appellate authority by passing a well speaking order vide order dated 10-10-2025. The same has also been served upon his what's no 7xxxxxxxx7 as well as afÏxed on his house no M-345 Urja Nagar Jarhi District Surajpur (C.G.) on 15-10-2025 as well as by post. Since the appeal of the petitioner has already been decided, the question for deleting/removing the condition of imposing the penal rent from the para 9 of the order dated 12-09-2025 does not arise, and the review petition filed by the petitioner having become rendered infructous, vide of order dated 10-10-2025 passed by the appellate authority as Annexure R/1. It is submitted that, admittedly the petitioner has been terminated from the service on 25-06-2007 and he is required to vacate the company quarter just after expiry of 3 months from the date of termination, however, he did not vacate the company's quarter i.e. House No. M-345 which was allotted to him and he is still occupying the company quarters unauthorisedly without paying penal rent and electricity charges with others due of the quarter. Even the Estate OfÏcer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, has also passed the order on 23-05-2025, and directed the petitioner to vacate the company quarter and handed over the same to the company within 15 days, but the petitioner did not comply with the said order and he is still unauthorisedly occupying the company quarters. Even the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against his termination has been rejected by the appellate authority by speaking order by 10-10-2025, as such he is legally bound to pay the penal rent of the company's quarters as per rules. It is submitted that, 6 the review petition has been filed by the petitioner only in order to escape from his liability of paying the penal rent of the company's quarter which the petitioner is unauthorisedly occupying since the year 2007 without paying due rent. 9. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that since the petitioner has already been terminated from the service way back in the year 2007 and there is no employer employee relationship exists between the petitioner and the respondent, therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to retain the company's quarter without paying penal rent and he is required to pay the penal rent as per company rules till the date of vacation of company's quarters. 10.Learned counsel for respondent would submit that there is specific observation made by this Court in order dated 12-08-2025 that, "9. Meanwhile, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner subject to payment of penal rent of the quarter as per rule." Only in view of the conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court the respondent vide its memo dated 27-09-2025, directed the petitioner to pay the penal rent of Rs. 5,83,200/- i.e from the period of October 2007 till September 2025. As such, there is no illegality committed by the respondent in issuance of letter dated 27-09-2025 vide Annexure P/3. Since the Hon'ble Court has categorically observed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner only in respect of eviction of the petitioner from the company's quarters subject to payment of penal rent of the quarter as per penal rules. Therefore, the petitioner has to comply with the said conditions imposed by the Hon'ble High Court by 7 paying the penal rent of the quarters. The whole object behind the filing of the review petition of the petitioner is that he will not have to pay the penal rent as per Annexure P/3. Therefore, the instant review petitioner is liable to be dismissed and shall direct the petitioner to pay the penal rent according to the Annexure P/3. 11.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 12.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the applicable rules of the respondent no. 1 and 2 relating to the company's quarter. In clause 25.4 the workmen is entitled to be continued in possession till the proceeding is decided in CGIT (Chhattisgarh Industrial Tribunal) or any Court. Apart from no any provision has been prescribed for panel rent. He further submits that as there is no provision of imposing panel rent as well as the possession of the allotted residential house is permissible during the pendency of the proceedings so, the issuance of the notice Annexure P-3 is contrary to the standing orders of the respondent no. 1 to 3. 13. The submission made by the learned counsel for respondents is that as per direction of this Court 12.08.2025, the departmental appeal of the petitioner has already been decided by the appellate authority by passing a well speaking order vide order dated 10.10.2025, therefore this review petition is not maintainable. 14.The learned counsel for respondent/s placed a document of SECL dated 23.11.2005 which is taken on record, by which penal rent would 8 be applicable in this case. For ready reference clause-2 is reproduced hereinunder:- 2. The recovery of penal rent from retired executives/staff beyond the permissible period of three months shall be regulated, with prospective effect, as under:- (a) Double the normal rent for a period of one month (b) Actual rent for the period occupied by the retired, executives/staff as under:- (I) For “D” Type Quarter: Rs. 5,000/- pm + Rs. 1000/- as service charges. (ii) For “C” Type Quarter; Rs. 3000/- pm + Rs. 750/- as services charges (iii) For “B” Type Quarter; Rs. 2000/- pm + Rs. 500/- as services charges (iv) For “C” Type Quarter; Rs. 1000/- pm + Rs. 350/- as services charges 15. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is extremely limited and can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter which, despite due diligence, could not be produced earlier. A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. 16.In the present case, the order dated 12.08.2025 clearly stipulates in paragraph 9 that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner subject to payment of penal rent as per rules. The said condition was consciously imposed by this Court while granting protection to the petitioner during pendency of the departmental appeal. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out warranting interference in review. 17.It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was terminated from service on 25.06.2007 and continued to occupy the company quarter 9 thereafter. The respondents have placed on record the relevant circular dated 23.11.2005 prescribing recovery of penal rent for unauthorized occupation beyond the permissible period. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that there is no provision for levy of penal rent cannot be accepted. 18.Moreover, during the pendency of the present review petition, the departmental appeal of the petitioner has already been decided by the competent appellate authority vide order dated 10.10.2025. In view of the subsequent development, the very basis for continuation of interim protection granted earlier no longer survives, rendering the present review petition infructuous. 19.This Court finds that the petitioner is seeking re-appreciation of the issues already considered and decided, which is impermissible in exercise of review jurisdiction. No ground within the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is made out for recalling or modifying paragraph 9 of the order dated 12.08.2025. 20.Accordingly, the Review Petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall comply with the condition imposed in paragraph 9 of the order dated 12.08.2025 and pay the penal rent as demanded by the respondents in accordance with applicable rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti