Jharkhand High Court
Dhaneshwar Ramani vs Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 107 of 2025
--
Dhaneshwar Ramani, aged about 57 years, son of Shri Mangru Ramani, Resident of Village Dahua, near School, P.O.-Kusumghati and P.S.- Boarijor, District-Godda, Jharkhand.
......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Eastern Coalfields Limited through the General Manager (I/C), Rajmahal Group of Mines Area, Office Dhankundda, P.O.-Bara Semra and P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Godda, Jharkhand.
2. The Manager, Eastern Coalfield Rajmahal Area, P.O. and P.S.-Rajmahal, District-Godda, Jharkhand ......Respondents
--
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--
For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
--
04/08.10.2025 The instant review application has been preferred by the Petitioner for review of the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in W.P(S) No. 5732 of 2019, inasmuch as, in paragraph-19 there is an observation that "even after calculating the date of birth as 14.01.1968; the petitioner would have retired till date;..............."
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the age of retirement in the Respondent-Coal Company is 60 years; as such, in the order under Review the observation made by this Court that the Petitioner would have retired till date is apparent error on record.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondents was given two months' time to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
4. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the prayer for review and further submits that it will change the entire scenario.
15. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors reported in 2017(2) JLJR 629, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has relied upon a judgment in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik, reported in (2006)4 SCC 78.
Learned counsel relies upon a specific paragraph, which is extracted hereinbelow:
"13..........There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by „error apparent‟. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error....where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which states one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out........."
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents further opposed the prayer to review by saying that the Respondents have filed an appeal.
He further relies upon Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and submits that the instant review application is not maintainable because the respondents have filed an appeal
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order under review, prima-facie, it appears that there is apparent error in the order, inasmuch as, in paragraph-19 there is an observation that "even after calculating the date of birth as 14.01.1968; the petitioner would have retired till date;..............."; however, the age of retirement in the Respondent-Coal Company is 60 years.
28. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the review application is not maintainable; it is necessary to peruse Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. For brevity Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereinbelow:
"1. Application for review of judgment.--(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
9. The main stress of learned counsel for the respondents is that there is specific provision in Order 47 Rule 1(a) which states that "by a decree or order for which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred"; and in the instant case, the Respondents have filed appeal.
Relying upon this Clause, learned counsel reiterates that since the respondents have already filed an appeal; as such, the review is not maintainable. This argument of respondent is misconceived and is not acceptable to this Court because from bare reading of the provisions, it clearly transpires that it speaks about the person who has filed review as well as appeal; therefore, this argument is not sustainable.
10. So far as second argument is concerned that the nature of order will be changed because this Court by considering the petitioner as retired employee has awarded compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh; then this will not come under 3 the preview of review. In this regard, he has also referred relevant part of the judgment quoted hereinabove.
11. After going through Para-19, it is clear that the date of birth of the Petitioner is mentioned as 14.01.1968 and there is categorical observation of this Court that the petitioner would have retired till now. This Court feels that this is an apparent error on record because in the State of Jharkhand or in Central Government or State Government or in any Public Sector Undertaking, the age of retirement is either 58 or 60 and nowhere it is 56; accordingly the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5732 of 2019 requires to be reviewed.
12. Since, Ld. Counsel contended that the nature of order will change after review.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant Review Application is allowed. Since, there will be change in nature of direction; accordingly, Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 5732 of 2019 is restored to its original position. List it under the heading for Final Disposal on 14.11.2025.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 8th October, 2025 jk 4