SBWRW(writ)28/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Review Petition No.28/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2934/1995 Yogesh Kumar Lumb Vs. The Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Others Date of Order ::: 28.07.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Swadeep Singh Hora, Counsel for petitioner Shri Virendra Dave, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. This review petition has been filed by petitioner with prayer that while deciding the writ petition, the question with regard to petitioner's entitlement to pension remained undecided while other reliefs were granted. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his case, relied on following judgments - (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5680/1996, S.G. Rao & Others Vs. State and Others, decided on 13.07.2010 along-with five connected matters, (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5442/1991, D.K. Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, decided on 03.11.1993 SBWRW(writ)28/2010 // 2 // and (3) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.991/2002, Suresh Chandra Mathur Vs. State, decided on 07.11.2005, and argued that the controversy raised in this matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments and in fact the judgment in S.G. Rao's case (Supra) was passed recently based on earlier two decisions. Though, this view was not considered by the Court while deciding the writ petition. Learned counsel for respondents submits that pursuant to the judgment of which review is sought, the respondents have already granted some of the reliefs to the petitioner and thus part of the judgment has been complied with. In the circumstances, he opposes the prayer for review. Having regard to the facts situation wherein I find that the reliefs that had been prayed for by the petitioner were partly granted and some of the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 11.08.2009 the respondents proceeded to make compliance, I do not think it appropriate to now recall that order. However, considering the fact that the controversy with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for grant of pension, has already been debated before this Court and decided in SBWRW(writ)28/2010 // 3 // number of previous judgments, I sat the petitioner at liberty to make a fresh representation to the respondents to accord him a treatment similar to one granted to those whose writ petitions were earlier allowed by this Court and even by the Division Bench. Respondents would consider and decide petitioner's representation for granting similar treatment, and pass appropriate order on such representation within two months. It goes without saying that in case the representation of the petitioner is not allowed, the petitioner would have a liberty to approach this Court afresh by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//