1-,' ! • COURT PEES EXBVIPTED BYI<pTIFICAT10N .\0.39S(VO-2a70flOa- BSK6J05 AS SPEGIFIEO IN SWEDULE tSUOF THE COURT FEES ACT 1W& c <<.. ^-y IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fe^.^i N0. / ^'2—/2010) (ARISING OUT OF W.P. (S) N0.273/2010) J^ ^^.-<0 •f; .-Al^) ^- ^^. <^' i*ix^ APPLICANTS/ 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH TS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, D.K.S. .BHAWAN,RAIPUR. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY, ACCOUNTS & PENS10N, BILASPUR. 3. THE D1ST. EDUCATION OFFICER, KORBA,C.G. VERSUS P.K.SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/0 LATE SRI D.N.SHARMA, R/0 GOVT. QUARTER, 4/4, 27 KHOLI, VIKAS NAGAR, BILASPUR, C.G. APPUCATION FOR REV1EWLOF THE ORDER DATED 21ST JANUARY, 2010 IN W.PfS) N0.273/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT NON APPLICANT If^ H!GH COURTOF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR REVIEW PETITION No.42of2010 ES : State of Chhattisgarh & Others RES VERSUS P.K. Sharma APPLSCATION_FOR.REVEW_OF T'HE: ORDER DATED 21/01/2010 PASSED iN W.P.CS'S.NO. 273/2010 SS: Hoa'bie Shri Satish K. Asnlhotri. J. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advocate Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe petilsoners. 2'i (Passsd on 06n day of May,2010) ' I.A.No.1, application for condonation of deiav in fiiina the review petnion, Is ordered, as prayed tbr. Deiay is condoned. By this petltion, the peiitionere./ Siate seeks rsview of the order daled 21/1/2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(S).No. 273/2010, wiih the prayer to pass another order. This Court on 21/1/2010 havino examined the W.P.(S).No.273/2010 passed tne foiiiw order : Learned counsei appearina for the petitioner submits that leave encashment in favour of the petitioner has been sanotioned by order dated 21-S-200S (Annexure - P./4) for a period of 240 days by the Disirict Education Officer, Korba. Despite the sanotion of leave encashmenl, no payment has been made tii! date. /Learned counse! further submits that the Detitioner has retlred as Office Superiniendeni from the oSTice of Districi Education Officer, Korba. Thereafter, no order has been passed either to amend the order dated 21-6-2006 or canceling the sarne. Accordinaiv, the petitioner has faeen denied the bensfit of leave sncashment for the last more Ihan 3'!''2 years. Having regard io the facfs as aforesiated, ihe respondent authorities are directsd to ensure grant of payment to ihe petilioner as per ;he order dafed 21-6-2006 in respect of pavment of leave encashment prepared by the District Educaiion Officer, Korba, wiihin a period of ihree Va'eeks from the dat8 of recsipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other ordsr mod'fylng or repeaiing the order dated 21-5-2006. Since tha pavment has been deSaved not on account of fault on the part of the petitioner, but o". account 1 ::'-°-^ if''' K-t .^:^^^:^^,,,, <<?'"".^ A~'^> F^"«»"^ S' IWK—..^ 'S i ^VSi^, } '^'4 ? V '1&. S S ^. 'lfc-*""^?' ^y ashok 3) 5) of fault of other officers, the petitioner sha!i be entit'ed So interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of sanction order i3Si the paysTient is The prayer and the grounds mentloned in the review petition appear to be misconceived. if the .Detitioners have anv arievance of whatsoever nalure, they may approach appropriate forum that may be avaiiable to them under provisions of iaw. No case is made out for review the order. This attempl seems to be fo re-argue the matter, whioh is not permsssibie in the review petition. The pelitionere have not polnted out any manifest error on the record and the petitioners have not further brought jnto the notice, any new faclswhich couid not be produced earfier despite diligera etforts made by the petjtionere. !t is well settled principies of law that the review proceedlngs are not by wwy of an appeaS and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Ruie 1 of the Code of Civii Procedure. Even in exeroise of review jurisdiction by the High Court upder Articie 228 of the Constiiution, the petiSioners have noi produced any ground for review. It appears that the petitioneis by presentation of this ravie'w petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merils under the aarb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenabie in iaw. it fe wei! settied principie of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner shouid not be permitted to argue the enlire case the review petition info >cs tne same is in law. (.See 3m!. IV Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdhary', Liiy Thomas etc. vs. Unlon of india and othere , Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others , Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and othere and Keraia Siate Etectricity Board Vs. Hitech Eiectrothemnicsm & Hydropower Ltd., and othere . As a resutt and in view of the foregoina, the s-eview petition is dismissed. --————— Satisli K. Agnihotri Judge '• AR 1995 SC 455 ' AJR 2000 SC 1650 3 AS. 2000 SC 85 4 (2005) 2 SCC 332 3 /^^iAC^ ^ C<,'~< (2005) 6 SCC 651 >«