Dismissed

The High Court of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association

Chhattisgarh HC12 Dec 2022REVP/171/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition under High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, the Chamber dismissed the review, holding that the petitioner sought only to re-litigate the case on merits. The court dismissed the petition for lack of substratum, relying on Supreme Court precedents restricting review petitions.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed for lack of substratum and attempt to re-agitate the matter.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Review Petition No. 171 of 2022

¶5

The High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association Registered Under The Chhattisgarh Society Registration Adhiniyam 1973, High Court Of Chhattisgarh Premises At Bodri, Bilaspur, Through Its President Shri Pooran Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh Thakur, Assistant Registrar, Highcourt Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Pooran Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh Thakur Assistant Registrar, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G.) And President Of Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association, High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, D. K. S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Secretary Finance Department, Government Of Chattisgarh, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Chattisgarh, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Application for review of the order dated 14-09-2022 passed in

¶15

WP(S) No. 4276 of 2011

¶16

(By circulation in chamber)

¶17

S.B. :Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶18

12-12-2022

¶19

The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High

¶20

¶21

Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

¶22

The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 14-09-2022 passed in WPS No. 4276 of 2011, according to which observation made in para 20 of the order is not in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

On going through the order dated 14-09-2022 passed in WPS No. 4276 of 2011, it is manifest that the order has been passed in strict adherence to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of High Court Employees Welfare Association, Calcutta and Others vs State of West Bengal and Others¹ wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that a special Pay Commission consisting of Judges and the Administrators shall be constituted by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Government to make a report and on receipt of such report, the Chief Justice and the Government shall thrash out the problem and work out an appropriate formula in regard to pay scales to be fixed for the High Court employees.

¶24

The direction contained in paragraph 20 of the order is in line with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the face of the record and has not further brought to the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not way of an

¶25

1 (2004) 1 SCC 334

¶26

¶27

appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to contest the case afresh on merits, which is not permissible and tenable in law while exercising power of review.

¶29

It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to contest the case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Ram Sahu (Dead) through Lrs. And Ors. Vs Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, Manu/SC/0821/2020, Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}.

¶30

As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶33

Deshmukh

The High Court of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Devi Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Pandey Vs State of C.G.

Ramkumar Rajwade Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Mohini Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

School of Pharmacy Chouksay Engineering College Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Vs Mukesh Pratap Singh

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh