Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicants – South Eastern Coalfield Limited (through Chairman cum Managing Director), General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sub Area Manager Bhatgaon; Non‑applicant – Rajeshwar Sahu, son of the deceased employee.
  • Proceedings: Review petition (Rev.P. No. 49 of 2026) filed against the order dated 03.11.2025 in WPS No. 2117/2021, which had set aside the rejection of the non‑applicant’s claim for dependent employment.
  • Background: After the death of the employee, Rajeshwar Sahu applied for dependent employment. The applicants rejected his claim, citing the service record of the deceased showing a date of birth 01.12.1976, making the claimant 43 years old and thus age‑barred (age limit 35 years under the National Coal Wage Agreement). The claimant submitted Class 5th mark‑sheet, Aadhaar Card and PAN Card indicating his date of birth as 21.12.1985.
  • Arguments – Applicants: Relied on the service record as sacrosanct; argued the claimant was age‑barred. Also highlighted that the voter list showing the claimant as 28 years old in 2003 was not annexed to the writ petition.
  • Arguments – Non‑applicant: Emphasised that Aadhaar, PAN and mark‑sheet were part of the original writ petition and had been considered. Contended that the voter list was a new fact not raised earlier and that review is permissible only on discovery of new and important evidence or a patent error (Rule 90 of High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules 2007 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC).
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, citing Supreme Court decisions in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia & another v. State of Punjab (2017) 8 SCC 518, and principles from Union of India v. Abhishek Jain (Review Petition No. 83/2025, 25.04.2025) and S. Madhusudan v. Narayana Reddy (2022 LiveLaw SC 685). It held that the documents (Aadhaar, PAN, mark‑sheet) were already on record, no patent error existed in the 03.11.2025 order, and the voter list was a new argument not raised at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the review petition could not be entertained.

Final Outcome

  • The review petition is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The original order dated 03.11.2025 remains effective.

Topics: Legal Review, Dependent Employment Benefits