IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0J^) ?»' OF 2010 APPLICANT ^^ESPONDENT ,0 ...-•• r v^""...-- !': ^<fl\v--"\»,' 1. Chamarin Bai, W/o Sukaluram 64 years, R/o Village Paudibahar, P.S. Rampur, Korba, Dsitrict Korba, (C.G.) ^;'"\^--' ^' 'y' ^\ ^-" .. MSff l>^ ^.X ^^y '^^'' ^ ^y' VERSUS NON-APPLICANT6 ^TITIONER ; ^ .4. Divisional Forest Officer, Korba f^° A- / Division, District Korba, (C.G.) j^ y" 2. Pjt.e.^d''^ QVff'-^-, Lobw^C*WJr, "^ote' B-,lMpun-,(£.fe.^ REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 READ WITH RULE 87 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES.2007^6iMKST 01?D£R DA^&D_<?^·'Z·200^ PAs&eo 67 THIS noNece. COURT^M w.p.No.isu/isi^ ^M£-- ^•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 49 of 2010 Petitioner : Chamarin Bai. VERSUS Respondents : Divisional Forest Officer, Korba & another. REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 READ WITH RULE 87 OF THE MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2007 CBY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. ORDER (Passed on 21st day ofJune, 2010) 1. The matter is faken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of die High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. I.A. No. 1, this is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. The review petition has been filed after 87 days ofthe limitation period. The grounds made in the application for condonation ofdelay is satisfactory and appears to be bonafide. Thus. delay in Gling review petition is condoned. 3. The review petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 7.12.2009 passed in W.P. No. 1911 of 1997 (Divisional Forest Officer v: Chamarin Bai & another), on the following grounds: "2.1 That, the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court deserves review since thought he applicant's husband didn't complete 240 days of service as per the requirement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the instant case the facts and circumstances make out a sufficient case for adoption of sympathetic view for old and disabled widow, i.e. the applicant hence the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Soil Conservator, Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 103 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684, becomes applicable, and the applicant is entitled for compensation by taking a sympathetic view towards the old applicarit who is hand to mouth. 2.2 That, further since the claim of the applicant regarding non-payment of salary for few months for which he had worked, still survives, therefore the same deserves sympathetic consideration by this Hon'ble Court." The review petitioner is not disputing the fact that the review petitioner has not completed 240 days ofservice in the preceding year or 12 months. However, the review petitioner claims sympathetic view in view of Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another and Chief Soil Conservator, Punjab v. Gurmail Singh. The Supreme Court, in Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another (supra) in a situation wherein the employee had not completed 240 days service in the preceding year, observed as under: "8. The fact that the respondent was appointed on daily wages and he has not completed 240 days, is not in dispute. Retrenchment of the respondent by the appellant, therefore, did not require compliance with the provisions of section 25- FoftheAct." In ChiefSoil Conservator, Punjab (supra), the order was passed in the peculiar facts ofthe case and as such, the same is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case. In State of M.P. & Others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "25. Furthem-iore, ordinarily, the writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone." The prayer and the grounds mentioned in the review petition appears to be misconceived. Invoking sympathetic consideration in review petition is misplaced as it has already been held that the petitioner has not acquired any legal right. ' (2006) 11 SCC 684 .2 (2009) 15 SCC 103 ' (2008) 1 SCC 456 .^t^~s'i^ -;^^ 'w -^:-^^ 8. The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced eariier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and arobit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicants have not produced any ground for review. 9. It appears that the applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb ofthe review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb ofreview petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case a&esh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See '..Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Cohwdhary , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union oflndia and others5, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State ofOrissa and others , Government ofT.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others , 93\& Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others .) 10. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. As Judge Amit 4AIR 1995 SC 455 .SAIR 2000 SC 1650 'AIR2000SC85 7 (2005) 2 SCC 332 S(2005)6SCC651