SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. RATNA SAHU

2

had dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in WPS No. 5305 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant case the deceased husband of the respondent was appointed as a regular part time waterman in the revisionist/applicants Corporation on 09.04.1999. He worked in the Corporation till the year 2016 and expired on 05.07.2016. After the death of her husband, respondent submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the Corporation on 28.07.2016. The said application was rejected by the applicant No. 1 on 19.02.2018, stating that there is no post in existence for part time employee and further, directions have been received from Central Office that no further appointment shall be made on part time basis.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that against the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the applicant No. 1, respondent preferred an appeal before applicant No. 3. However, the same was rejected on the ground as mentioned in the order dated 19.02.2018 and further, it has been stated that as per the prevailing policy there is no sanctioned post for part time employment in existence in the Corporation, and therefore, there can be no such employment. Being aggrieved from which respondent has filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 5305 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court and sought the relief of quashment of order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the applicant No. 1 and order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Zonal Manager. Further, direction has been sought against the applicants for considering her application for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 15.02.2024 placing reliance on the circular dated 03.12.2013 issued by Corporation wherein it has been directed to convert all part time

3

sweepers into full time employees and also reliance has been placed on the circular dated 10.10.2017 by which all part time regular employees were converted into full time regular employees.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that being aggrieved from the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, writ appeal bearing WA No. 212 of 2024 was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court. However, the same was dismissed and the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed vide order dated 25.04.2024 on the ground that after perusal of the documents such as salary slip and the amounts towards the provident fund, insurance premium, co-operative society, medical advance, loans etc., it is reflected that husband of the respondent was treated as regular employee of the Corporation and his designation was sweeper.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent submits that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration all the issues raised in this review petition, has rightly allowed the writ petition and the learned Division Bench has also affirmed the same. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the learned Division Bench and as such, this review petition also deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the review petition as well as the writ appeal and the writ petition.

8. This Court, after taking note of all the relevant aspects of the matter, had arrived at a finding that all the benefits of the Full Time employee was extended to the deceased Late Gopal Prasad Sahu such as salary-slip and

4

the amount towards provident fund, insurance premium, co-operative society, medical advance, loans etc., which clearly shows that huband of the respondent was treated as regular employee of the Corporation and his designation was Sweeper. Further, for the purpose income tax for the assessment year 2016-17, Form No. 16 has also been issued to the husband of the respondent, hence, finding no ground for interference, the appeal was also dismissed.

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 Procedure, 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 ground for review. It appears that the review petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law.

11. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the review petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the

5

same is not sustainable in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases 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 2000 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

Abhishek/Brijmohan