Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the Review Petition filed by Vimal Kumar Singh challenging an order in a writ petition. The court held that the review petition is not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding the denial of back wages.
Review Petition No. 111 of 2018 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Review Petition No. 111 of 2018
Vimal Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri R. A. Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Behind Gupta Flour Mill, Bajrang Chowk, Arvind Nagar, Bandhawapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate
For State
: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
25/10/2018
The present review petition has been filed seeking for review of the order dated 04.09.2018 passed in WPS No. 5750 of 2018.
2. The grievance raised in the present review petition is to the finding in paragraph-6 wherein this Court had made the following observation:
“6. Reserving the right for the petitioner to claim appropriate relief in that regard from the respondents, the present writ
2
petition in its present form claiming back wages may not be sustainable in the light of the decision of this High Court dated 19.01.2007 passed in WP No. 1033 of 2003.” 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for back wages as similarly placed persons have been granted back wages on their being acquitted in criminal case. Moreover, according to the petitioner, the authorities in the department have themselves recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of back wages for the intervening period.
4. The aforementioned ground which has been raised by the petitioner would not be a ground within which the review petition could be entertained. It is settled position of law that review petition can be entertained only in the event of there being an error apparent on the face of the record. This Court while refusing back wages had given specific reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled for the same. If the petitioner was not satisfied or was aggrieved with the observations of this Court, the option available to the petitioner was to prefer an appeal against the said order.
1 AIR 1995 SC 455
2 AIR 2000 SC 1650
3 AIR 2000 SC 85
3
Bhola
of T.N. and others vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others4 and Kerla State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others5 . 6. Thus, applying the above well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, there is no ground available for review of the order dated 04.09.2018. The review petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- ( P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
4 2005 (2) SCC 332
5 2005 (6) SCC 651
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition is maintainable given the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages as similarly placed persons have been granted back wages on acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. Mawasi and OthersReferred¶24
2012(7)SCC 200 · Who else cites this
Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari ChoudharyReferred¶24
1 AIR 1995 SC 455 · Who else cites this
Lily Thomas, etc. vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶24
2 AIR 2000 SC 1650 · Who else cites this
Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶24
2 AIR 2000 SC 85 · Who else cites this
Govt. of T.N. and others vs. M. Ananchu Asari and othersReferred¶25
2005 (2) SCC 332 · Who else cites this
Kerla State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and othersReferred¶25
2005 (6) SCC 651 · Who else cites this
Vimal Kumar Singh
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Social Welfare
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
