Review Petition N070 of 2009 PE’X‘ITIONER: Ram Sahay Kashyap, Aged 70 years, S/o 8111i Dhaxxamm Kashyap, Ex. Junior Executive, Bhilai Stsel Plam, Maharat (mowk, New Adarsh Nagar, Behind Deshlehra’s klouse, Durg (CG) —Ver$us— RESPONDENTS: 1. Steel Autharity of India Limited, Bhilai Sieel Plant, Dietn'ct Durg, through its Chailmarl cum Managing Director 2. The Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Giatuity Act, 1972. Chhattisgarh Region; Ofiice of Deputy Labour Commissioner? Raipur (CG) ~ Shn' HR. Dwivedi (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972) Retd., Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur 3. Single Bench: Hon’ble Qhxi Dhirendra Miahm, J. ORDER KN CHWBER (L- 1 1-2009) 1. The petitioner has med this; petition for review of the. order dated 24-7-2009 passed. in Writ Petition No.3845/99 (Ram Sahay Kashyap VerSus The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ’2 others). ‘2. The petitioner has prayed for review of the impugned order on the ground that the petitionex’s Writ Petition No.3845/99 against the order of the Appellate Authority has been dismissed affirming the findings recorded in the appellate order. 3. The Appellate Authority quashed the order of the Controlling Authority dated 24th June 1998 passed in case No.11/PGA/97 mainly on the basis of allegations made by the $teel Authority of India Limited (for O1 . The order uudar View has 136611 passed after elaborately discussing the proceedings before the Controlling Authom'ty and also considering the findings of the Appellate Authority based on reconl. t!» gw short ‘the $AIL’J agamst the Controiling Authority, WP. No.3845/99 is dimeted against the orrlsr of the appellate authority. The SAIL also challmlged tht: order of the controlling authon'ty data}, 24-6—98 and calculation sheets drawn by one Kashyap on the basis of abova order, which was registered as WP. No.5925/98. In the said writ petition, similar allegations were made against the controlling authoxity as were made in appeal before the appellate authority. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 21-2—2007 disposed of the petition and allegations made against Shri Satya Prakash Verma, the controlling authom‘ty were expunged. However, the appellate authon‘ty on the basis of same allegations made against the cootrolh’ng authority has allowed the appeal which stood expunged. As the allegations were Withdrawn by the SAIL and the Division Bench had expunged the remarks, no credence could be attached to the findings of the appellate Authority, which were anived at on the basis of bald allegations against the Controlling Authority. Perused the grounds taken by the petitioner in the petition for review. The scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The paiamet:ers are prescribed in Order 47 CFC. The petitioner piays for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistake or eiror apparent signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an em‘or is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate. and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated. as an error apparent on the f} faca of the: mcord for the purpOSe of Ordtr 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed 1'11 State of West Bengal and others Versus Kama! Senguyta and another, {(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612]. 7. 1:1 View of the above settled proposifion of law, no ground for review is available to the petitioner against the impugned order. 8. The petition 1's without any substance, thC same des accordm . g1 , y dlsmlssed. . . Dhirendra 3d]; Mishra Judge Barve ewes to be and 1's