drp {1} C.A. No.18122/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18122 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION NO 148 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1352 OF 1992 Dr.Bhimrao Trimbakrao Munde APPLICNAT VERSUS Marathwada Agricultural University & Anr RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.S.Deshpande h/f Mr.Hemant Survey, advocate for applicant Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.N.R.Shaikh, AGP for respondent No.2 State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd December 2010 PER COURT: 1. This civil application has been filed seeking clarification in respect of the order passed by us while dismissing the review petition No.148/2009, on 24.09.2009. The prayer made in this civil application is to be found at prayer clause “c”, which reads thus - drp {2} C.A. No.18122/2010 “C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to clarify that the issue in relation to the entitlement of the applicant for pension and pensionary benefits has not been addressed or adjudicated upon by it, while considering Review Application No.148 of 2007 on 24.9.2009, and thus, the order of dismissal of Review Petition at Exhibit A would not come in the way of the applicant to independently agitate his entitlement as to pension and pensionary benefits, and especially such claim which the applicant has made in Writ Petition No.2074 of 2010, which is pending adjudication”. 2. It appears that the applicant herein had filed Writ Petition No.1352/1992 in this Court praying for the following reliefs - a) Rule may kindly be granted by calling the records from the office of respondent No.1, b) The respdt.no.1 may kindly be directed by issuing writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ to regularise the services of the petitioner from 29.10.1979 till today treating him as a permanent medical officer on the clear vacancy of the post of the Medical officer in the office of respondent No.1, b-1) The order of discontinuation dt.11/6/1992 w.e.f. 13/6/1992 passed by the respondents be set aside and quashed. So also if the order appointing anybody else after 13-6-1992 in the place of the petitioner as Medical Officer is passed by the respondent should also be quashed and set aside; b-2) That the services of the petitioner be made permanent and regular since 29.10.1979 with all back wages, arrears and other benefits of that post of Medical Officer permissible by law; drp {3} C.A. No.18122/2010 3. The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 14th September 2004, allowed the petition and made rule absolute by holding as follows : “6. Therefore, in our view, a writ has to be issued against Respondent No.1 to regularise the petitioner’s services in the post of Lecturer in Public Health from 16.06.1992 and shall also finalise the pension etc. of the petitioner on that basis, as per Rules from the date of his posting as Lecturer in Public Heath in the University from 16.06.1992.” 4. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner filed Review Application No.148/2009 in this Court praying therein for directing respondent No.1 to compute the service of the petitioner from 29.10.1979 for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits. 5. Obviously, in the review application, the applicant herein had prayed for a relief, which had not been prayed in the petition filed by him earlier and which came to be allowed. Obviously, the review Court could not have reviewed the judgment and could not have granted a prayer, which was not made in the petition filed earlier. The Division Bench, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the aforesaid judgment. The Review Application, therefore, came to be dismissed. 6. The petitioner, who is the applicant herein, who had been held dis-entitled to claim pension on account of the fact that drp {4} C.A. No.18122/2010 the petitioner had not rendered pensionable service, filed substantive writ petition No.2074/2010 in this Court. At the time of admission of the petition, on behalf of the respondent No.1 University, it was urged before the Division Bench that in the light of the dismissal of the Review Application, the petitioner was barred from agitating the same relief, which the petitioner had prayed for substantively in Writ Petition No.2074/2010. In that light of the matter, therefore, the present application has been filed. 7. According to us, the only clarification which can be issued by this Court is that the Review Court could not have granted the relief, which was prayed for by the applicant in the Review Application, as the applicant therein had prayed for a relief, which had not been prayed for in Writ Petition No.1352/1992, since the question of holding whether the petitioner was entitled to have his earlier service tagged to the service rendered by him after regularization was not the question which fell for consideration of this Court. In that light of the mater, therefore, according to us, no further clarification is necessary apart from stating that the aforesaid question was not decided by us on merits and the Review Application was only rejected on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of record, as the applicant, in the Review Application, had prayed for a relief, which was not prayed for in the substantive writ petition filed earlier. drp {5} C.A. No.18122/2010 8. This application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid clarification. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/ca18122-10