1 2026:CGHC:25566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 119 of 2026 1 - Alok Zachariah S/o Late Shri K.K. Zochariah (Occupation Retired Accounted ) Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Umrmara, Post -Amali, Tahsil Kota -District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur P.S. Kewli Tahsil And District - Raipur C.G. 2 - Director, Healthe Services, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director, Health Services, Seepat Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Chief Medical And Healthe Officer, Bilaspur Tahsil And District -Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Near Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gaurela -Pendra Marwahi C.G. 6 - Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center Gaurela Tahsil Gaurela District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi C.G. 2 7 - District Treasusre Officer, Gaurela -Pendra Marwahi District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 23.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. The present Review Petition is being preferred by the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 4419 of 2023 (Alok Zachariah vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) challenging the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court, was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had preferred WPS No. 4419 of 2023 (Alok Zachariah v. State of Chhattisgarh & others) challenging the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by non-applicant No. 6, whereby he was directed to deposit the alleged excess payment of Rs.13,17,766/-. It is submitted that though the said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026, the findings recorded in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 thereof are contrary to the material available on record and constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. He would submit that the non- 3 applicants had neither produced any material nor adduced any evidence to establish that the petitioner himself had calculated or fixed his pay and thereby obtained excess payment of salary, nor was any material placed on record to show that the petitioner had made any misrepresentation, committed any fraud or suppressed any material fact in relation to fixation of his pay-scale. It is further submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant from the post of Assistant Grade-III only on 03.02.2011, whereas the impugned recovery has been directed for the period from 01.10.2008 to 30.11.2021; therefore, for the period from 01.10.2008 to 03.02.2011, when the petitioner was admittedly working on the post of Assistant Grade-III and not as Accountant, the conclusion that he had himself fixed his pay- scale and obtained excess payment is ex facie contrary to the record. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that the findings recorded in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 of the order dated 13.03.2026 are liable to be reviewed/recalled in exercise of powers under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petition is devoid of merit and has been rightly dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.03.2026, as the findings recorded therein are based upon due appreciation of the material available on record. It is further submitted that the recovery in question has been rightly directed in accordance with law and there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant review of the judgment/order passed by this Hon’ble Court. It is thus prayed that the present review petition 4 deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the review petition, various grounds have been raised assailing correctness of the finding recorded by this Court. The grounds do not make out any case for review and the review petition appears to be more in nature of an appeal in disguise. 7. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 8. The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under 5 review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha