1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 151 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2009 Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Bansilal Ahire ...Respondent WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 145 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 146 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 147 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 148 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2009 WITH 2 REVIEW PETITION NO. 149 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2009 AND REVIEW PETITION NO. 150 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 72 OF 2009 Mr. D.J. Khambata, Additional Solicitor General, with Ms. Lata Patne for the Petitioners Mr. V.N. Tayade for the Respondents. CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 1, 2010 P.C.:- Union of India has sought to review our common judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009 solely on the ground that at the time the matter was heard and decided by this Court, none of the parties brought to the notice of this Court the judgment dated 28th April, 2009 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 2005 R.R. Pillai (dead) through Lrs. v. Commanding Officer HQ S.A.C. (U) & Ors., over-ruling the decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Aslam reported in 2001 (1) SCC 720. 3 2. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employees that the judgment under review has already been acted upon, and, therefore, this Court may refrain from exercising its power of review, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland & Anr. v. Toulvi Kibami & Anr. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 671. 3. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that as it stands now, the authority in R.R. Pillai’s case would govern the field, and it will be proper that this Court re-considers the decision. Further, we have been informed that the curative petition has been filed by the employees in R.R. Pillai’s case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and, therefore, in case the Supreme Court disposes of the curative petition, then the decision in R.R. Pillai’s case would continue to govern the field. 4. We find that it will not be proper for us to review our decision mainly for the reason that the impugned judgment is already acted upon by the parties. At the most, we may clarify that this should not be treated as a precedent, subject to the decision in curative petition in R.R. Pillai’s case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4 5. The learned Additional Solicitor General has brought to our notice that for the implementation of the order, insofar as it relates to payment of back-wages is concerned, a contempt petition has been filed before the C.A.T. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that they would withdraw the contempt petition on compliance of the order. 6. All these Review Petitions, therefore, stand dismissed. J.N. PATEL, J. SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.