Kailash Hada vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3182 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kailash Hada vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1591




                                                              1                                 RP-1501-2024
                               IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                 ON THE 22 nd OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                REVIEW PETITION No. 1501 of 2024
                                                      KAILASH HADA
                                                          Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - advocate for the petitioner.
                                Shri Shashank Sharma - PL for the respondents/State.

                                                               ORDER

This is review petition of order dated 06.12.2024 passed in W.P. No.19552/2024 (Kailash Hada vs. State of M.P. & Ors.). The applicant/writ petitioner filed a petition challenging his termination from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and has also challenged the order by which the appeals were dismissed. This Court held that Gram Rojgar Sahayak is a contractual employee and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment as well as of the scheme of post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, no regular enquiry as envisages under Rule 14 & 16 of MPCCA Rules are required. It was further held that the petitioner was given show cause

notice and he filed a reply, thereafter the statement of the witnesses were also recorded and then the impugned order was passed. In view of the aforesaid, it was held that no regular enquiry is required to be held in a case of termination of contractual employee as per the Gram Rojgar Sahayak scheme and the terms & conditions of the contract.

02. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not his submission that an enquiry under Rule 14 of MPCCA Rules is necessary, but he argued that an

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1591

2 RP-1501-2024 enquiry as held in number of cases by this Court in a case of Gram Rojgar Sahayak is mandatory before passing the order of termination. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission in detail and after considering the same in the light of various judgments and terms and conditions of the scheme as well as of appointment held that no regular enquiry is necessary to be held for termination of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.

03. In my considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and

searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. The Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."

04. In the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.

05. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

soumya