Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
27.02 .2024.
1. Heard Shri HB Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Ku. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners and Shri
2
Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioners seeking review of the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 20/2016, by which, this Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the review-petitioner, affirming the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in WPS No.832 of 2012, by which, while allowing the petition, the learned Single Judge directed the review petitioner/SECL authorities to consider the petitioner's application for grant of dependent employment in accordance with the provisions contained in the NCWA-VIII (National Coal Wage Agreement) on its own merits, within 45 days from the date of said order.
3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the review petitioners is that the writ petitioner had filed a petition being WPS No.832 of 2012, stating inter alia that as per clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA, the petitioner being dependent of the deceased is entitled for "dependent employment" within the meaning of the NCWA and non-grant of such an employment as per the NCWA is unsustainable and also prayed for grant of appointment as per provision contained in NCWA. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein, as aforesaid. On an appeal being filed by the review petitioner,
3
the same was dismissed by this Court upholding the order passed by the Single Judge.
4. Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the review petitioner would submit that in a similarly situated case i.e.
Sebron Ashawan vs. South Eastern Coal Limted & Ors.
vide Order dated 29.9.2021 passed in WPS No.5232/2021, the learned Single Judge dismissed petition filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that petitioner's mother is already in Government employment, hence, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment in his father's place under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). On appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order passed by the Single Bench. He would further submit that order passed in the present case as well as in the case of Sebron Ashawan (supra) are contradictory to each other, therefore, it requires reconsideration by way of review looking the National Coal Wage Agreement for the relevant period.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports impugned order. He submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record and relevant provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). Therefore, it is not a case for review of the impugned order, hence, the same
4
may be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by this Court on 11.10.2023 and the documents appended thereto.
7. The respondent had filed application for compassionate appointment, which has not been considered by the SECL/review petitioner, against which, the respondent filed writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed in WPS No.832/2012 and the said order was subsequently upheld by the appellate Court in WA No.20/2016 passed on 11.10.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in writ appeal, this review petition has been filed.
8. From perusal of the order dated 11.10.2023, passed by this Court in WA No. 20/2016, it transpires that the order has been passed after taking note of provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA , which is binding settlement and which nowhere excludes the dependent employment on the ground of one of the family members of the dependent employee on employment. So far as the decision in the case of Sebron Ashawan (supra) relied by learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner, it is settled principle that every case depends on its own facts and merits, therefore, this Court do not find any force in the argument advanced by
5
learned Senior Counsel.
9. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the attempt of the review petitioners is to re-agitate the issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. Even otherwise, the law with regard to review of an order is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, which is missing in this case.
10. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope of ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedrue, 1908. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the review petitioner has not produced any good ground for review.
11. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not
6
sustainable in law as held by the Supreme Court in case of
Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others, reported in AIR 200 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari & Others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 and in the case of
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd & Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC
651.
12. As a result, this review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Bini