1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 414 of 2025 • Bhagwani Ram Bhatpahri S/o Late Shri Laduram Bhatpahri Aged About 59 Years R/o Village- Jounda, Post- Kond, Thana- Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Udanti, Gariyaband District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Application for review of the order dated 9-6-2025 passed in WPS No. 6056 of 2021 ( Bhagwani Ram Bhatpahri vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) (By circulation in chamber) S.B. : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas 15-12-2025 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2 2. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 9-6-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 6056 of 2021 wherein this Court partly allowed the writ petition reinstating the petitioner on his formal post ie., Assistant Grade III with continuity of service but without back wages and it is made clear that from the date of termination till reinstatement by the respondents, the entire service will be counted for the purpose of all service benefit except back wages and his pay will be fixed notionally for the intervening period.. 3. By this review petition the the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant back-wages in addition to the direction already made in the order dated 9-6-2025 passed in WPS No. 6056 of 2021. 4. On going through the order dated 9-6-2025 passed in WPS No. 6056 of 2021, it is manifest that after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court has passed the order which is sought to be reviewed herein. 5. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and have not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 7. 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. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar 3 Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kearla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 8. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.12.15 12:12:29 +0530