1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6817 OF 1999 Mr. Chander Leelaram Rajai and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The Punjaba Sevak Sabha and ors. .. Respondents Ms. Kumud Bhatia for petitioners. Mr. S.P. Kanuga for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. February 11, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Ms. Bhatia the learned counsel for the review petitioners. 2. Writ Petition No. 6817 of 1999 came to be decided on 2 16/7/2009 and this petition prays for the review of the same order. 3. We have noted that this court had referred to the judgment in the case of Jagdish Lal and ors. vs. State of Haryana and ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 538] and noted that the delay dis-entitles the party to discretionary relief, particularly when an impetus to the petitioner is given by a judgment passed in some other case and this reference was to the earlier judgment of this court in the case of Mrs. Vaishali V. Chandekar and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. The learned counsel for the respondent-management made an offer to restrict the benefits of the pay-scale to three years prior to the date on which the petitioners had approached this court and the learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to such an arrangement. It was under these circumstances, by consent of the parties, the petition was disposed off by directing respondent no.3 to determine the amount which the petitioners will be entitled by way of arrears for the period of three years prior to their filing of the writ petition. 4. The order, by consent, cannot be a subject matter of review on the ground that the directions given earlier in the case of Mrs. Vaishali Chandekar (Supra) were not followed. We do not see any ground made 3 out to reconsider the said order dated 16/7/2009, as it was an arrangement made by consent of the parties. 5. Hence, the review petition is rejected. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)