- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the counsel for the University did not appear on the day when the order was passed on 18.12.2008, the actual fact could not be placed before this Court and, hence, case of the University could not be taken in to consideration by this Court while passing the order dated 18.12.2008 and had the University put forth its case before this Court, University must have placed its case that petitioner was entitled to have pension to the extent of Rs.6090/- whereas he drew the pension of Rs.7625/- every month and thereby the petitioner drew the pension amount in excess which he was not entitled to and, hence, the same was sought to be realized and therefore, the order dated 18.12.2008 needs to be reviewed to the extent that the petitioner is liable to return the amount which he has drawn in excess.
(2.) I am afraid that any fact known from before brought at the this stage can be the subject matter of the review application. That apart, I do no find any error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, it is dismissed.;