SECL Fails To Undo Age-Committee Referral In Retired Employee’s DOB Dispute As Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Review

In WPS No. 3395 of 2020, the High Court directed the competent authority to refer the respondent’s date-of-birth dispute to the Age Determination Committee and to pass a reasoned order, although the respondent had retired from service.

SECL sought review, contending that the respondent’s date of birth was recorded as 1 July 1961, that the writ court should instead have directed consideration of a representation, and that the National Coal Wage Agreement did not permit referral of an executive-cadre employee to the Committee.

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits review on limited grounds, including an error apparent on the face of the record; review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reappreciate the matter or substitute one possible view for another.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Abhishek Jain (REVP No. 83/2025, order dated 25 April 2025) and S. Madhusudan v. Narayana Reddy & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685, for the principle that an error requiring reasoning or reappreciation is not an apparent error.

It also applied Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, which holds that review corrects mistakes but cannot be used merely to substitute a view or because another view is possible.

The Court treated SECL’s objection—that the National Coal Wage Agreement did not permit referral of an executive-cadre employee to the Age Determination Committee—as a challenge to the correctness of the writ court’s direction on the merits.

Determining that objection would require examination of the controversy rather than correction of a patent error; it therefore fell outside the limited scope of review.

The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient ground for review.

The Court dismissed the review petition as devoid of merit.