SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD COMPANY LTD. vs VASU DEO PRASAD

1

CGHC010350722026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 384 of 2026
1 - South Eastern Coalfield Company Ltd. Through The Chairman, Kol Bhawan, Promise
No. 04, Mar Plot No.- A.F.- Iii, Action Area 1-A, New Town, Rajar Hat, Kolkata (West
Bengal) Pin 700156, District Kolkata, West Bengal
2 - Chief Managing Director, S E C L, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Director (Personnel), S E C L, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - General Manager, Baikunthpur, S E C L Baikunthpur, Post Office Baikunthpur, District
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
Vasu Deo Prasad S/o Late Shri Rohan Prasad, Aged About 54 Years Working On The Post
Of Assistant Manager, Charcha West Mines, S E C L Baikunthpur Area (E I S No.
90371402) R/o Quarter No. Type-3/33, Shivpur Charcha, Post Charcha, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh. Pin 497339, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla with Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
03.11.2026
1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114
read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
“the CPC”) seeking review of the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by this Court

2
in WPS No. 3395 of 2020 whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the
observations made in paragraph 6 thereof which read as under:
“Be that as it may, since the Age Determination Committee is the
competent authority to determine the petitioner's date of birth, it
would be appropriate to refer the matter to the said Committee.
Accordingly, the concerned authority is directed to refer the
petitioner's case to the Age Determination Committee, which shall
determine the petitioner's date of birth in accordance with the
applicable rules/policy. Since the petitioner has already retired from
service, the competent authority shall consider and pass a reasoned
and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petition was
instituted by the petitioner at the fag end of his service career wherein his date
of birth was recorded as 01.07.1961 in his service records. He submits that
before the writ Court, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that
in the event the petitioner submitted a representation before the competent
authority, the same would be considered and decided in accordance with law
within a reasonable period. However, instead of directing the competent
authority to consider and decide the representation, this Court directed the
matter to be referred to the Age Determination Committee. According to
learned counsel, such a course was impermissible in view of the provisions of
the National Coal Wage Agreement which according to him, do not
contemplate reference of an employee belonging to the executive cadre to the
said Committee. He further submits that the order suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in review
jurisdiction. On the aforesaid ground, issuance of notice on the review petition
is prayed for.

3
3. I have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is well settled that the power of review is to be exercised sparingly and
within the limited ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. A review cannot
be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be invoked to re-appreciate the
evidence or re-examine issues already adjudicated upon. If the relief sought is
intended to alter the substance of the judgment or substitute one possible view
for another, the appropriate remedy lies in appeal and not by way of review.
The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Union of India Vs.
Abhishek Jain and ors . passed in REVP No. 83/2025 order dated
25.04.2025, has observed that review jurisdiction can be exercised only to
correct an error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S. Madhusudan v. Narayana Reddy & Others , 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 685 , has held that while a patent or manifest error may justify
review, an error requiring a process of reasoning or re-appreciation of the
matter cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.
5. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas and others v. Union of
India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 has held that the power of review is
not an appellate power and cannot be exercised merely because another view is
possible. Relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
“56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a
view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the
statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be
treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views
on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition
is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained.
The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of
the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches
of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed

4
and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers
under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon
satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in
deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created
under any other statute, can take a different view
notwithstanding the earlier judgment.”
6. In the present case, upon consideration of the grounds raised in the review
petition, this Court finds that the grievance of the review petitioner essentially
relates to the course adopted by the writ Court while disposing of the writ
petition by directing the matter to be referred to the Age Determination
Committee for consideration and passing of a reasoned order. The contention
that such a reference was impermissible in the case of an employee belonging
to the executive cadre having regard to the provisions of the National Coal
Wage Agreement essentially calls for an examination of the merits of the
controversy and the correctness of the direction issued by the writ Court. Such
an exercise would necessarily amount to reconsideration of the matter on
merits which is beyond the permissible limits of review jurisdiction.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the review petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the
face of the record or any other sufficient ground warranting exercise of the
review jurisdiction of this Court. The grounds raised in the review petition do
not satisfy the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.
8. Consequently, the review petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
d/- Sd Sd/-
s/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
H.Ansari