C.Rev. No.10 of 2009 3.8.2010 Present: Shri Sandeep Sharma, ASGI for the petitioners. Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent. CMP(M) No.157 of 2009 Sh.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Sh.Jaswal does not oppose the application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Civil Review No.10 of 2009 The review petition is ordered to be taken up for admission today itself with the consent of the parties. The main grievance of the review petitioner is that inadvertently and by mistake, some words have been incorporated in the order that some statement was made by the counsel for the Union of India. In fact, no statement was made by the counsel that the facility, in question, would be available to all the members of the Defence Forces irrespective of the date of their retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the respondent has been paid his dues but this finding would affect other cases and no such statement was made by him. He further submits that date has no relevance with regard to disability pension and obviously this is wrongly recorded statement. This fact has been conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the above stated position, we are of the considered view that no such statement could have been recorded in this case since disability pension has no connection with the date of retirement of an officer. The review petition is allowed and the order dated 28.2.2008 is recalled. The Letters Patent Appeal is restored to its original number and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard today itself. LPA No.59 of 2007. This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2007 whereby the appellant was directed to revise the disability pension of the original writ petitioner. We have been informed at Bar that in fact, the pension has been revised in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2007 and payment has also been made to the respondent. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), Judge August 3, 2010(m) (Sanjay Karol), Judge