1 CGHC010349222026 2026:CGHC:42478 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 339 of 2026 1 - Keshav Prasad Tiwari S/o Shri Chhedilal Tiwari Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kopra, Post Bahtarai, Via Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Review Petitioner No.1 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Public Instructions, Office Of Directorate Of Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Kallu Singh Parihar S/o Shri Chholendra Singh Parihar R/o Vrihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Jairam Jaiswal R/o Village Matiari, Post Janjee, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner No.1 : Ms. Sandhya Rao, Advocate REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.09.30 14:32:36 +0530 2 For State/ Respondents : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30.09.2026 1. Heard. 2. The review petitioner has filed the present modification/recall application seeking modification/recall of the order passed in WPS No.6096 of 2018 dated 10.08.2026, on the ground that the review petitioner, namely, Keshav Prasad Tiwari, has already attained the age of superannuation, i.e., 62 years, and, therefore, the service benefits attached to the post of Assistant Teacher may be granted to the review petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Saini, learned Deputy Government Advocate would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Rao. He would submit that liberty was granted to the petitioners in said writ petition to make a detailed representation before the State of Chhattisgarh, and the authority concerned was directed to consider and decide the same in the light of the order dated 28.06.2008 issued by the District Education Officer, Raipur. He would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the present review petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents available on the record. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the review petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the order dated 10.08.2026. The said order merely granted liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed 3 representation before the State of Chhattisgarh and directed the authority concerned to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and in the light of the order dated 28.06.2008 issued by the District Education Officer, Raipur. Therefore, in my opinion, no ground is made out for review. 6. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha