1 2026:CGHC:23030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 115 of 2026 Lalji Mishra S/o Shri Hiralal Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Ambikapur- Road, Manendragarh, P.S. Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services Health Services Department, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Divisional Joint Director Health Services Sarguja Division, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 4 - Collector Surguja Ambikapur District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Manendragarh District- Mcb (C.G.) 6 - Tahsildar Manendragarh, District- Mcb (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 14-5-2026 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for review of the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No.1915/2025. 3. In aforesaid order, this Court has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner directing to reinstate him in service and also granted 25% AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.05.15 14:29:41 +0530 2 back wages. Relevant paragraphs No.12, 13, 14 & 15 of the order are reproduced hereinunder :- “12. In view of the above, it is explicit that the reasons for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is in conflict with the legal principles laid down in the afore-mentioned cases. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-P/1) is not sustainable in law and same is hereby set-aside. 13. The respondent Authority is directed to reinstate the service of the petitioner on the said post within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled for notional seniority from the date of cancellation of his appointment and said period shall also be counted for pensionary benefits. 14. This Court also observes that if the petitioner files an affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, he shall be entitled for 25 % of total back- wages i.e. the period between date of cancellation of appointment till his joining.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been directed to be granted back wages to the tune of only 25% whereas in other case i.e. WP No.3899/2006, the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 31-7-2024 has granted full back wages. Hence, learned counsel prays that the present review may be allowed. 5. In reply, learned State counsel, referring to Rule 54A(2) of the Fundamental Rules, submits that it is not necessary to grant full back wages in all cases, rather it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He further submits that after considering facts of the case, this Court has held that the petitioner shall be entitled for 25% of 3 total back wages i.e. the period between date of cancellation of appointment till his joining if he files affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere in that period. He further submits that the review petition can be allowed only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, but there is no such apparent error pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court, after considering the fact situation of the case, has observed that, ‘if the petitioner files affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, he shall be entitled for 25% of total back wages i.e. the period between date of cancellation of appointment till his joining.’ Thus, aforesaid percentage of back wages was allowed by the Court after considering facts situation of the case. If in other cases, full back wages have been granted, the it cannot be equated with the case in hand. 8. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, it is further held 4 that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 9. If the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant review petition is taken into consideration, then it would amount to reconsider the issue, which has already been considered while passing the order dated 25-4-2024, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 10. Having considered aforesaid facts and provisions of law, this Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition. 11. In the result, the review petition is dismissed at motion State. 12. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak