- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri S. P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the review-petitioner and Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
(2.) THIS Court has passed a detailed well-considered judgment on 16-11 -2002 concluding the controversy raised by the petitioner. A perusal of the review petition reveals that the review petitioner has in fact tried to persuade the Court for rehearing and re- ap praisal of the matter, which is not per missible under the review jurisdiction of this Court. No element of Order XLVII Rule 1 C. P. C. is present in the review petition. The matter cannot be reopened, re-heard or reappraised as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995 (1) JCLR 97 (SC): 1995 (1) SCC 170, Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmal Kumari Chaudhary; AIR 1980 SC 647, Northern India Caterers v. LI Governor, Delhi; 1998 SCO 85 (DB), U. P Pharmacy Council v. Yashkaran Singh and this Court in 2005 (3) JCLR 311 (All): 2005 (3) AWC 2601, Smf. Krishna Pathak v. Vinod Shanker Tiwari and Ors. The petitioner has already enjoyed the benefits of Army services on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service-book and by virtue of the in terim order passed by this Court on 25-4-1988. The petitioner was discharged from Army services on 1 -7-1995. The review petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, Sri S. P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the review petitioner has laid stress that the petitioner has not been allowed any retiral benefit despite his discharge from Army services in July, 1995. How ever, it shall be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities of the Army for redressal of his grievances and the concerned authority is ex pected to pass appropriate orders in the matter. Petition dismissed. .;