The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Nadeem Khan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6942 MP

                                                         1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                              ON THE 28 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                          REVIEW PETITION No. 654 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               THE    PUBLIC    WORKS   DEPARTMENT,
                               MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS
                               DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, FIRST FLOOR
                               PLOT NO. 27-28 ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    THE  CHIEF ENGINEER,    PUBLIC  WORKS
                               DEPARTMENT, SAGAR ZONE, DISTRICT SAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS
                               D E PA R T M E N T, SAGAR DIVISION, SAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUBLIC WORKS
                               D EPA R TM EN T, KHURAI DISTRICT   SAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....PETITIONERS
                         (BY SHRI MANHAR DIXIT - PANEL LAWYER)

                         AND
                         NADEEM KHAN, S/O LATE NAZIR AHMED KHAN, AGED
                         ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O GANESH
                         WARD, CHHOTI BAZARIA, BEENA, DISTRICT SAGAR
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI HARISH CHAND KOHLI - ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                         following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/3/2023
10:59:44 AM
                                                             2
                                                              ORDER

T h is review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure RP-1), passed in Writ Petition No.4130 of 2017.

2. It is submitted that the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the petitioners herein to decide the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is submitted by the petitioners that the order was passed by this Court treating the father of the respondent as a regular employee as there was no document on record to suggest that the father of the respondent was appointed as Helper under the Work Charged Contingency Paid Establishment.

That due to inadvertence the submission made in paragraph-3 of the return filed in writ petition with regard to status of the father of the respondent could not be substantiated with the documents. The father of the respondent continued in the Work Charged Establishment as a Helper till the date of his demise.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing of the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the order passed by this Court is just and proper and it does not call for interference. This Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case has passed the impugned order. Hence, no ground for review is made out. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others [2021 (2) M.P.L.J. 472] and also in the case of Dr. Devendra Gautam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Appeal No.2103/2019), decided on 19.11.2020.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that there is no error apparent on the face of record. The ground which has been taken in the present petition is Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 5/3/2023 10:59:44 AM

not a ground for review. The review can be made in exceptional circumstances where there is error apparent on the face of record. The law with respect to review is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The scope of review is limited as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479, and S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 and in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sen Gupta and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612. Therefore, no case is made out for review of the order. No glaring irregularity or illegality could be pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned order. Thus, no interference in the order could be made in this review petition.

6. The review petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE taj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 5/3/2023 10:59:44 AM