IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.256 of 2008 PERMA NAND SINGH, son of late Thakur Prasad Singh, resident of Fatehpur, Malsalami, Patna, Postman, Alwalpur, EDSO …….. Petitioner Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Chief Post Master General, Bihar, Circle, Patna 2. Director Postal Services (HQ), office of CPMG, Bihar Circle, Patna 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patna Division, Patna-4 4. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, East Sub Division, Patna-4 …Respondents Respondents ----------- 04- 5.10.2009 Heard Mr. Amar Nath Jha for the petitioner. This review application has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No.14034 of 2008 (Perma Nand Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), which was dismissed by order dated 16.9.2008, and the order dated 14.5.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No.44 of 2005, was upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. By order dated 1.10.2004, passed by the postal authorities of the Government of India, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Postman to GDS cadre on the ground that he had obtained the appointment on the basis of forged certificate. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid OA No.44 of 2005. On an exhaustive consideration of the matter, a Division Bench of the Tribunal upheld the order of reversion and dismissed the original application. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid CWJC No.14034 of - 2 - 2008, which has been rejected by the order in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has accepted the order of reversion, and has superannuated in 2006. The respondent authorities may be directed to make payment of the differential amount of his salary for the period 2004 to 2006. We do not find that such an issue had been raised before the Tribunal the legal position, therefore, is that the issue will be deemed to have been raised and rejected by the Tribunal. This being an issue of fact, ought to have been raised before the Tribunal. It was not raised in the writ proceeding. It is not possible for this Court to entertain an issue of fact at this belated stage. 4. This review application is rejected. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl