Smt. Panawati Shrivas Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director S.E.C.L

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

NAFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 15 of 2024

¶5

Smt. Panawati Shrivas W/o Late Dev Prasad Shrivas Aged About 70 Years, C/o S.V. Purohit, High Court Advocate Qtr No. Lig-49 C.G. Housing Board Colony, R. P. Nagar Phase-2, Behind Niharika Talkies Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Chairman Cum Managing Director S.E.C.L., Head Office, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. Khan Adhikshak S.E.C.L. Johila Collery Birsingpur Pali, Distt Umariya M.P. Pin Code- 484555.

¶9

3. Regional Personal Manager S.E.C.L. Johila Area Post- Narojabad, Distt Umariya M.P. Pin Code- 484555.

¶10

4. Regional Commissioner Office Gupteshwar Sakti Nagar, Jabalpur, M.P. ----Respondents

¶11

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

In Chamber

¶14

05.02.2024

¶15

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:-

¶16

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court Kindly accepted this review by set-aside the impugned judgment Annexure-R1 and imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the all respondents because thye were intentionally not released the family pension of the above petitioner so the same amount should be paid by the precious order of the Hon'ble Court and this Review should be heard urgently because the petioner is in the age of 70 years and also indisposition and also not received the family pension after the death of her husband 23 year time have been already passed due to this reason this review should be heard expeditiously in the interst of justice with the above petitioner.”

¶17

2. The facts of the present case are that one Dev Prasad Shriwas, son of Jairam Shriwas was working as a Security Guard in the Johila Colliery Area under the respondents. He died in harness on 15.03.2000. The

¶18

-2-

¶19

petitioner claiming herself as the wife of the late Dev Prasad Shriwas claimed retiral dues. It is further pleaded that the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a nominee in the Nomination Form and Coal Mines Provident Fund Declaration Form and according to the CMPF scheme, the petitioner is entitled to receive all the retiral dues but till date, the same has not been paid, therefore, she has sought the relief as stated above.

¶20

3. In this review petition, the petitioner has pleaded that according to the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, an employee has the option to receive either the full pension or 90% of the pension. The employee may choose to allocate an amount equal to 100 times the full monthly pension to the nominee i.e. widow/widower after the employee's death. Further, the petitioner is about 70 years old, and it is very difficult for her to maintain the house and her health, therefore, a prayer has been made to set aside the order passed by this Court in WPS 7269 of 2019 and to direct the respondent authorities to release the whole pension amount within 15 days from the date of order, and also, after compliance of the order of this Court, they shall intimate about the same to this Court. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of D.D.Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2861 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due as well as the gratuity .

¶21

4. 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.

¶22

-3-

¶23

5. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:-

¶24

“ Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:

¶25

"1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved-

¶26

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

¶27

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶28

(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 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)

¶29

(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.

¶30

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."

¶31

6. 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.”

¶32

7. 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

¶33

-4-

¶34

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”

¶35

8. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:-

¶36

“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.”

¶37

9. 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.”

¶38

10. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, ( 2021 ) 3 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”

¶39

11. 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:-

¶40

“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.”

¶41

-5-

¶42

12. The petitioner has sought rehearing of the writ petition by way of this review petition which is not permissible. Further, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. Accordingly, the instant review petition

¶43

is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶46

Nadim

Smt. Panawati Shrivas v. Chairman Cum Managing Director S.E.C.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Panawati Shrivas v. Chairman Cum Managing Director S.E.C.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Sen Vs Parakh Ram Parganiha

Meena Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemlal Shikari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Subhashni Sahu @ Subhash Tandon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs Muthoot Housing Finance Ltd.