1 - Snehlata Raju W/o Pankaj Panchal Aged About 37 Years Working As Store v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, New Raipur
Case Details
1 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 18:31:57 +0530 2025:CGHC:44807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 244 of 2025 1 - Snehlata Raju W/o Pankaj Panchal Aged About 37 Years Working As Store Clerk (Incharge) In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kondagaon (C.G.) R/o R.E.S. Colony, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Engineer Indravati Project Board, Jagdalpur Dist- Jadalpur Baster (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer T.D.P.P. Water Resources, Division, Jagdalpur Dist- Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer Department Of Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Water Resources Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Department Of Water Resources, Kondagaon Dist.- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 02/09/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 27-06-2025 passed in
Decision
W.P.S. No. 6016/2025, by which this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner had challenged 2 the order dated 13-06-2025, by which she is temporarily posted at the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bijapur, on administrative exigency, on the ground of her health condition. She was initially transferred on 20-11-2024 from Narayanpur to Kondagaon, and within 07 months, she has again been transferred from Kondagaon to Bijapur. He would further submit that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of Clause 3.10 of the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025, and the petitioner cannot be transferred as she has not completed 02 years at her present place of posting. The authorities have not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before transferring her to Bijapur, even her poor medical condition has not been considered. On 27-06-2025, the petitioner had filed an additional document in the writ petition along with the application for taking documents on record, and the same has not been considered while passing the order under review. By way of the application/additional document, the petitioner filed a copy of the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025, which ought to have been considered at the time of passing of the order dated 27-06-2025. Thus, the order under review may be recalled/set aside, and the writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state, on instructions, opposes and submits that the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 27-06- 2025 on the ground that the additional document filed by her on 27-06-2025, i.e. the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025, has not been considered while passing of the order, but the provisions of transfer policy was duly considered by this Court. He would further submit that in the order under review, it has been observed that the petitioner may raise her grievances before the authority concerned as provided under Clause 8 of the transfer policy. Since the petitioner was temporarily posted at Bijapur, under the internal office management, on administrative exigency, there is no violation of any condition of the transfer policy. Clause 3.10 of the transfer policy is directory 3 4. 5. and not mandatory. Therefore, there is no merit in the review petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the review petition and writ petition. Perusal of the order under review would show that it is a bi-party order. Grounds raised in the review petition that the document filed on 27-06-2025. i.e. transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 has not been considered by this Court while passing of the order under review, does not appeal for the reason that the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 has been considered and it has been observed in para 3 of the order under review that the petitioner has the remedy of making her representation to the Committee constituted under Clause 8 of the transfer policy. Further observing that the transfer/posting of the employee is an incidence of service, and the employee may be posted anywhere in the public interest and administrative exigency. 6. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 7. Section 114 of the CPC vests the power of review in the Courts, and Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC provides the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC "(1) Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on 4 account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 8. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 9. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final,cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 10. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 5 “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error 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 review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 11. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 12. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 13. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6016/2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WPS No. 6016/2025] is decided by this Court on 27-06-2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for recalling of the order passed in WPS No. 6016/2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made 6 out for review. 14. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Alok Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge