[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vipin Chourasiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.15
10:19:04
+0530 1
2026:CGHC:16781-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 293 of 2026
Vipin Chourasiya S/o Late Tulsiram Chourasiya Aged About 38 Years
R/o Lig J/14, Ward No. 32, Dindayal Awas, Housing Board, Colony,
Near Pani Tanki, Rampur, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource
Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development
Corporation, Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikas Pradhikaran Bhawan,
Second Floor, Old P.H.Q. Campus, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Collector Korba (Food Branch) District- Korba (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Anniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government
Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Isha Rajak Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13.04.2026
1 Heard Mr. Anirrudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy
Government Advocate, appearing for State/respondents No.1 & 3
as well as Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms. Isha Rajak, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
2 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following
relief(s):-
"i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the records pertaining to the
case of the present Appellant/Petitioner for its
kind perusal.
ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow the Appellant/Petitioner's writ
appeal and set-aside the impugned order dated
31/01/2026 passed by the Single Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in REVP No. 312/2025, in the
interest of justice.
iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may direct the
Respondents to kindly provide the
Appellant/Petitioner appointment on
compassionate grounds as provided to the
other similarly situated dependents of the
deceased employees, in furtherance of justice.
iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the case may also be
granted."
3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in REVP
No.312/2025 (Basanti Kushwaha v. State of Chhattisgarh and
others), whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the review
petition and recalled the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in WPS
No.2480/2025 preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner.
4 Brief facts of the case as projected before the learned Single
Judge that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner was working
on the post of Peon (Food Branch) in the Office of Collector,
Korba, on deputation, though he was substantively an employee
of the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation
(CIDC). During the subsistence of his service, he died in harness
on 25.01.2020. It was further pleaded that the appellant/writ
petitioner, being a dependent of the deceased employee,
submitted a representation dated 29.06.2020 before the Collector,
Korba as well as the Managing Director, CIDC, seeking
compassionate appointment, along with all requisite documents
including educational certificates and the death certificate of his
father. The said application was duly forwarded by the Collector
(Food Branch), Korba to the Managing Director, CIDC on
28.08.2020 for necessary action.
5 Subsequently, the Collector's office, by communication dated
04.12.2020, indicated that as per the then prevailing circular dated
19.07.2011 issued by the General Administration Department, the
dependent of a deceased employee of the dissolved Transport
Corporation (under CIDC) could be considered for appointment
only on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, and accordingly, the
matter was processed in terms thereof. Thereafter, the Chief
Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Korba, by letter dated
03.02.2021, informed the appellant/writ petitioner that for
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), certain
minimum educational qualifications including D.Ed./B.L.Ed. and
TET were mandatory. Since the appellant/writ petitioner did not
possess the said qualifications, he was granted a period of three
years from the date of death of his father, i.e., 25.01.2020, to
acquire the requisite qualifications. During the pendency of his
claim, the State Government issued a communication dated
13.12.2022 clarifying that dependents of deceased employees of
the dissolved State Transport Corporation could be granted
compassionate appointment on any vacant regular Class-III or
Class-IV post, including the post of Assistant Grade-III, thereby
broadening the scope of consideration.
6 It was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that
the General Administration Department, by circular dated
06.10.2023, withdrew the earlier restriction imposed by circular
dated 19.07.2011, thereby removing the condition limiting such
appointments only to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III.
However, despite the aforesaid developments and policy
changes, the Additional Managing Director, CIDC, by the
impugned order dated 02.11.2023, rejected the appellant's claim
for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that no
regular post was available in the establishment of CIDC.
7 Aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant/writ petitioner
preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge,
challenging the impugned order as being arbitrary, contrary to the
updated policy decisions of the State Government, and violative of
the object underlying compassionate appointment.
8 After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the record, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition holding that rejection of the
appellant/writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on
the ground of non-availability of vacant posts in CIDC was not
justified in the facts of the case, particularly when it is not
necessary that a dependent of a deceased employee be
appointed on a post of his choice and he may be considered even
for a Class-IV post; further observing that although earlier policies
contemplated appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-
III, the prevailing policy permits consideration against available
sanctioned vacant posts, and in view of the submission that only a
few employees are working in CIDC on deputation leaving
negligible possibility of vacancies arising therein, such restriction
would render the policy illusory, the learned Single Judge
quashed the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 and directed the
Chief Secretary of the State to consider the appellant/writ
petitioner's claim afresh not only in CIDC but also in other
government bodies such as Municipal Corporations, Municipalities
and Boards where vacancies may be available, and to pass
appropriate orders within a period of 90 days, thereby disposing of
the writ petition.
9 Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in WPS
No. 2480/2025, respondent No. 2/CIDC preferred a review
petition being REVP No. 312/2025, and the learned Single Judge,
vide order dated 31.01.2026, allowed the review petition
observing that though the CIDC was duly represented at the time
of hearing of the writ petition on advance copy, on account of lack
of proper instructions, relevant facts and material documents,
including the earlier rejection of the claim for compassionate
appointment on the ground of lack of requisite qualifications, could
not be brought to the notice of the Court, and consequently, the
writ petition came to be disposed of at the motion stage; it was
further observed that the review petitioner has now placed on
record several material facts as well as applicable policies,
circulars and orders governing compassionate appointment which
were not considered earlier, and therefore, the review petition
deserves to be allowed, resulting in recall of the order dated
11.04.2025 and restoration of WPS No.2480/2025 to its original
number for fresh consideration.
10 In the present writ appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner has called
in question the legality and validity of the order dated 31.01.2026
passed in REVP No. 312/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge
has allowed the review petition preferred by respondent No.
2/CIDC, recalled the earlier order dated 11.04.2025 passed in
WPS No. 2480/2025, and restored the said writ petition to its
original number for fresh adjudication.
11 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed in REVP No. 312/2025
is wholly unsustainable in law as the learned Single Judge has
exceeded the limited scope of review jurisdiction by virtually
rehearing the matter and substituting the earlier well-reasoned
order dated 11.04.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2480/2025. It is
contended that the review petitioner/CIDC had duly entered
appearance in the writ proceedings upon service of advance copy
and was afforded sufficient opportunity to place all relevant facts
and documents on record; however, due to its own lapse and lack
of instructions, it failed to do so, and such omission cannot be
permitted to be cured at the stage of review, as the same would
amount to allowing a party to fill up lacunae in its case.
12 It is further submitted that the very foundation of the review
petition, namely, alleged suppression of material facts by the
appellant/writ petitioner, is factually incorrect and misleading,
inasmuch as the rejection order dated 02.11.2023 was specifically
challenged in the writ petition and all relevant communications
were duly brought on record. It is argued that once the learned
Single Judge, after considering the material available, had
quashed the rejection order and directed the Chief Secretary to
consider the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner afresh even
beyond CIDC, there was no error apparent on the face of record
warranting interference in review jurisdiction.
13 Learned counsel further submits that the scope of review is
extremely limited and does not permit rehearing of the matter on
merits or re-appreciation of evidence, and in the present case, the
learned Single Judge has allowed the review petition merely on
the ground that certain documents and circulars were not placed
earlier, which is impermissible in law. It is contended that the
review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to take a second chance or
to improve upon a case which was negligently presented earlier,
and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
14 Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra,
(2019) 20 SCC 753, wherein it has been held that while exercising
powers under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, the Court does not sit in appeal over its own
order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, and that
review jurisdiction is confined only to correction of an error
apparent on the face of record and cannot be exercised to
substitute a different view.
15 Further reliance has been placed on Lily Thomas v. Union of
India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that the power of review can be exercised only
for correction of a mistake apparent on the face of record and not
to substitute a view, and that review proceedings cannot be
treated as an appeal in disguise.
16 Learned counsel has also placed reliance on M/s Shanti
Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board, (2020) 2
SCC 677, wherein it has been reiterated that the scope of review
is limited and under the guise of review, a party cannot be
permitted to re-agitate and reargue issues which have already
been decided on merits.
17 It is further submitted that in a similar matter, namely Managing
Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development
Corporation v. Tarpit Kaur and others (REVP No. 294/2025),
the learned Single Judge has rejected the review petition filed by
CIDC on identical grounds, holding that once sufficient opportunity
had been granted, rehearing of the matter in the guise of review is
not permissible, and therefore, the impugned order in the present
case is contrary to the settled legal position as well as
inconsistent with the approach adopted in similarly situated cases.
18 Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order dated
31.01.2026 deserves to be set aside and the order dated
11.04.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2480/2025 deserves to be
restored, as the same was passed after due consideration of the
facts and in furtherance of the beneficial object underlying
compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate
financial relief to the bereaved family of a deceased employee.
19 On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2/CIDC opposes the submissions and submits
that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the review
jurisdiction in the peculiar facts of the present case, as material
facts and relevant documents, which had a direct bearing on the
adjudication of the writ petition, could not be brought to the notice
of the Court at the time of initial hearing due to lack of proper
instructions, and therefore, in order to prevent miscarriage of
justice, the order dated 11.04.2025 was rightly recalled. It is
further submitted that there was no adjudication on merits in the
writ petition and the same was disposed of at the motion stage
without considering the complete factual and legal position
governing the claim of compassionate appointment, and
therefore, the review petition was maintainable to bring on record
the correct factual matrix, including the earlier rejection of the
appellant/writ petitioner's claim on account of lack of requisite
qualifications as well as the applicable policy framework.
20 Learned Senior Counsel would contend that compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right and is governed strictly by the
policy prevailing at the relevant time, and as per the applicable
policy, such appointment can only be granted against sanctioned
and vacant posts; in the present case, admittedly no post is lying
vacant in the establishment of CIDC, and therefore, the claim of
the appellant/writ petitioner was rightly rejected by the competent
authority. It is also submitted that the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge in the earlier order dated 11.04.2025,
requiring consideration of the claim even in other departments
such as Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Boards, was
beyond the scope of the applicable policy and could not have
been issued without examining the statutory framework and
administrative control of CIDC, and therefore, the said order
warranted reconsideration.
21 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the power of review
can be exercised where the Court finds that relevant material was
not considered or that the order was passed under an erroneous
assumption of facts, and in the present case, once the review
petitioner placed on record the necessary circulars, policies and
factual aspects which were not earlier considered, the learned
Single Judge was justified in recalling the order and restoring the
writ petition for fresh adjudication on merits. It is thus contended
that the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity warranting interference in the present
writ appeal and the same deserves to be upheld.
22 Learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has
not committed any illegality in allowing the review petition and
recalling the order dated 11.04.2025, as the same was passed
without complete assistance from the respondent authorities and
without consideration of the applicable policy framework
governing compassionate appointment. It is contended that once
relevant facts, circulars and policy decisions were subsequently
brought on record, the learned Single Judge was well within
jurisdiction to exercise powers of review in order to ensure proper
adjudication of the matter. It is further submitted that
compassionate appointment is governed strictly by the prevailing
policy and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the same is
subject to availability of sanctioned vacant posts. In the present
case, as per the stand of CIDC, no vacant post is available in its
establishment, and therefore, the claim of the appellant/writ
petitioner cannot be granted dehors the policy provisions. He
lastly submits that the order impugned in the present writ appeal
merely restores the writ petition for fresh consideration on merits
and does not cause any prejudice to the appellant/writ petitioner,
and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
23 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as materials available on record as also
the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the
learned Single Judge being WPS No.2480/2025 as well as the
review petition filed by the review petitioner i.e. respondent
No.2/CIDC being REVP No.312/2025.
24 After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, the learned Single Judge has passed the order
dated 11.04.2025 in the following terms :-
"6. It is not necessary to post a dependent of a
deceased employee on a particular post of his
choice, he/she may be offered employment on
a Class-IV post. Though there was a Policy in
the years 2011 and 2016 to offer a dependent
of a deceased employee to the post of Shiksha
Karmi Grade-III, such dependent may be
provided employment in the Class-IV post.
Further, the Policy dated 26.10.2023 states that
the claim for compassionate appointment would
be considered against sanctioned and vacant
posts available with the CIDC. It is informed by
the Advocates appearing for the CIDC that
there are only 9 employees in the department
and all are on deputation, meaning thereby, in
future, there is no possibility of arising out of
any vacancy to consider the claim of the
petitioners, therefore, such policy appears to be
a farce.
7. Taking into consideration the above-stated
facts, the Chief Secretary of the State is
directed to look into the grievance & claim of
the petitioner afresh. The decision taken by the
respondent authorities, whereby the claim of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment
was rejected, is hereby quashed.
8. It is expected that the Chief Secretary shall
consider and pass necessary order(s) with
regard to the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment, in CIDC or any
Municipal Corporation, Municipalities, Board
etc. if posts are lying vacant there, within a
period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order(s).
9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and
direction(s), these petitions are disposed of."
25 From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, it transpires that while deciding the writ petition vide order
dated 11.04.2025, the learned Single Judge, after taking into
consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and the material available on record, came to the
conclusion that rejection of the claim of the appellant/writ
petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of non-
availability of vacant posts in CIDC was not justified, particularly in
view of the fact that a dependent of a deceased employee is not
required to be appointed on a specific post of his choice and can
be considered even for a Class-IV post; further noticing that
though earlier policies contemplated appointment on the post of
Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, the prevailing policy permits
consideration against sanctioned vacant posts, and in light of the
submission made on behalf of CIDC that only a few employees
are working on deputation leaving no likelihood of vacancies
arising in future, the learned Single Judge observed that such a
policy would become illusory, and accordingly quashed the
rejection order and directed the Chief Secretary of the State to
consider the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner afresh not only in
CIDC but also in other government bodies such as Municipal
Corporations, Municipalities and Boards where vacancies may be
available, within a stipulated period.
26 Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in WPS
No. 2480/2025, respondent No. 2/CIDC preferred a review
petition being REVP No. 312/2025, and the learned Single Judge,
vide order dated 31.01.2026, allowed the review petition
observing as follows :-
"5. From bare perusal, it is manifest that though
while hearing the writ petition under review the
CIDC was properly represented on advance
copy, however, due to lack of proper
instructions he could not place anything.
However, the writ petition was disposed off
directing the Chief Secretary to the State
Government to look into the grievance and
claim of the writ petitioner afresh.
6. Be that as it may, now the review petitioner
bringing several facts and orders/ circular
issued by the authorities with regard to the
policy framed regarding grant of compassionate
appointment preferred the present review
petition, which was not brought before this
court at the time of hearing of writ petition,
hence, the review petition is allowed.
7. Consequently, the order passed in WPS No.
2480 of 2025 is hereby recalled and the said
writ petition is restored to its original number."
27 From perusal of the order dated 31.01.2026 passed in REVP No.
312/2025, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has allowed
the review petition primarily on the ground that though respondent
No. 2/CIDC was duly represented at the time of hearing of the writ
petition, due to lack of proper instructions, relevant facts,
documents and policy circulars governing compassionate
appointment could not be placed before the Court, and further that
such material has subsequently been brought on record in the
review proceedings; accordingly, the learned Single Judge
proceeded to recall the earlier order dated 11.04.2025 passed in
WPS No. 2480/2025 and restored the writ petition to its original
number for fresh adjudication on merits.
28 Upon a meticulous examination of the record, it is evident that the
review jurisdiction has been exercised beyond its well-settled and
limited scope. The foundation on which the review petition came
to be allowed, namely, that certain facts and documents could not
be placed earlier due to lack of instructions, does not constitute an
error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant interference
under review jurisdiction. It is trite law that review proceedings
cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise, nor can a party be
permitted to fill up lacunae or improve its case by placing
additional material which, with due diligence, could have been
brought on record at the initial stage. In the present case,
respondent No. 2/CIDC was admittedly represented at the time of
hearing of the writ petition and had sufficient opportunity to place
all relevant material before the Court, and its failure to do so
cannot be a ground to reopen the entire matter in review.
29 It further transpires that the learned Single Judge, while passing
the order dated 11.04.2025 in WPS No. 2480/2025, had duly
considered the factual matrix and the prevailing policy framework
governing compassionate appointment, and had rightly come to
the conclusion that rejection of the claim of the appellant/writ
petitioner solely on the ground of non-availability of posts in CIDC
was unjustified, particularly when the policy itself permitted
consideration against available posts in other government
establishments. The direction issued to the Chief Secretary to
consider the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner in a broader
spectrum, including other departments and local bodies, was in
consonance with the object underlying compassionate
appointment, which is to provide immediate succour to the
bereaved family of a deceased employee who dies in harness.
The said order did not suffer from any manifest error, much less
an error apparent on the face of record, warranting its recall in
exercise of review jurisdiction.
30 This Court is also of the view that the reasoning assigned by the
learned Single Judge in the review order virtually amounts to
reappreciation of the matter on merits on the basis of additional
material, which is impermissible in law. The scope of review is
confined to correction of patent errors and does not extend to
rehearing of the matter or substitution of a different view merely
because another view is possible. Permitting such an exercise
would render the finality of judicial orders illusory and defeat the
very purpose of limited review jurisdiction. Furthermore, the
approach adopted in the impugned order is inconsistent with the
settled legal principles as well as the view taken in similar matters,
wherein it has been held that rehearing of a case under the guise
of review is not permissible.
31 In light of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed in
REVP No. 312/2025 deserves to be and is hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in
WPS No. 2480/2025 stands restored and is affirmed.
32 As a necessary corollary, the writ petition filed by the
appellant/writ petitioner being WPS No.2480/2025 stands
disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the order dated
11.04.2025; the respondent authorities are directed to strictly
comply with the said directions and to consider the claim of the
appellant/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment in
accordance with applicable policy preferably within the period
already stipulated therein, if not already complied with.
33 Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands allowed. The
impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed in REVP No. 312/2025
is hereby quashed and set aside, as the same suffers from patent
illegality inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has exceeded the
limited scope of review jurisdiction by permitting reappreciation of
the matter on merits and by allowing the respondent to fill up the
lacunae in its case. Consequently, the order dated 11.04.2025
passed in WPS No. 2480/2025 is restored and shall hold the field.
34 There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
