Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 18231 (W) of 2005 has taken out this review application with an application for condonation of delay.
(2.) It is submitted that after the order dated April 24th, 2006 was made by me dismissing the writ petition on the ground that on the petitioner's reaching the age of superannuation (sixty) there was no scope to continue the disciplinary proceedings previously initiated against him, the petitioner has come to know that in view of certain statutory rules framed by the council concerned his retirement age at the date the writ petition was dismissed was sixty two, and not sixty. Counsel for the institute submits that on the basis that the petitioner was to retire on reaching the age of sixty, an order dated May 3rd, 2006 was issued notifying that he had retired from service with effect from February 24th, 2006. A copy of the order has been produced before me, it shall remain on records, and a copy thereof shall be supplied to counsel for the petitioner at once.
(3.) It is therefore apparent that the institute terminated service of the petitioner on the ground that he was to retire on reaching the age of sixty. This being the position existing today, and the further position being that in the writ petition superannuation age of the petitioner was not the issue. I am of the view that any subsequent discovery of documents on which the petitioner wants to rely in support of his case that he was to retire on reaching the age of sixty two cannot be a ground to review the judgment dated April 24th, 2006. Needless to say that only after duly establishing his claim he will be entitled to seek review of the judgment. But until he is armed with the necessary declaration, he is not entitled to ask me to recall my judgment and order on the ground that he was to retire at the age of sixty two. I therefore do not find any reason to entertain the review application.;