1 2026:CGHC:11773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 69 of 2026  Sudhir Kumar Verma S/o Late Babulal Verma Aged About 64 Years Occupation - Assistant Manager Technical, Last Posted Kasdol, R/o District - Baloudabajar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through The Chairman, 22 Anand Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Managing Director C.G. State Warehousing Corporation 22 Anand Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Manager Karmik State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.03 .2026 1. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that prayer with regard to payment of retiral dues has not considered while passing order in WPS No. 5184 of 2024. He would pray to review/re-call order dated 14.07.2025. 2. Mr. Panda would submit that the matter was argued at length by counsel appearing for the review petitioner, and thereafter, order impugned in writ petition was set-aside. He would submit that issue of grant of retiral dues was not raised at that point of time, and subsequently, by way of review petition such prayer should not be allowed. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.12 16:32:05 +0530 2 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the advocate representing review petitioner argued the matter in WPS No 5184 of 2024, but no submission was advanced with regard to payment of retiral dues. The matter was disposed of and order impugned in that writ petition was set-aside vide order dated 14.07.2025. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner is taking a chance to re-argue the matter, which is not permissible according to provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC; therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this review petition, accordingly, this review petition is hereby dismissed. 5. However, the review petitioner would be at liberty to claim retiral dues by filing a fresh writ petition, if so advised, and order passed in WPS No. 5184 of 2024 would not bar such claim. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant