IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.298 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi 2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Maripur, Muzaffarpur ……. Petitioners Versus 1. SMT. MANJU DEVI , wife of Sri Prem Kumar 2. Sri Prem Kumar, son of Shri Jhunnu Mahto 3. Sri Chotu Ram, son of Late Jagalal Ram 4. Santosh Kumar,son of Shri Prem Mahto - All are residents of Mohalla – Nayatola, PO –GPO, PS Kazi Mohammandpur in the town and district Muzaffarpur 5. Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ….. Respondents ----------- 03- 29/9/2010 Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil review application has been preferred seeking review and/or modification of the order dated 28.11.2008, passed in CWJC No.8649 of 2006. Today we have disposed of an identical matter, the facts of which are similar to the present one. Learned counsel for the petitioners has particularly referred to paragraph -11 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- “11. In the light of the consideration of the matter by us in the case of Ram Narayan Yadav (supra), the direction given by the Tribunal in respect of respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot be sustained and to that extent the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. However, the case of respondent no. 1 Manju Devi is different as she was engaged as casual labourer on 21st March 1992 i.e. much before the Scheme, 1993 came into force. As a matter of fact, counsel for the Central Government did not contest the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as Manju Devi is concerned.” 2. We have minutely gone through the order 2 including the stand of the petitioners as reflected from paragraph-4 of the order impugned. It appears therefrom that learned counsel for the review petitioners conceded before this Court that the case of respondent no.1 of the said writ petition was covered by the policy decision of the Central Government bearing OM No.51016/2/90 Estt., dated 10th September 1990. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not satisfied that any case for review of the order dated 28.11.2008, passed in CWJC No.8649 of 2006, is made out. This civil review application is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl