C. Review No. 99 of 2010. 23.9.2011 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. CMP(M) No. 801 of 2010 Heard. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the petition for reviewing the order dated 14.10.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 14224/2008 ( Vijay Kumar versus HRTC and others), which is barred by 268 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is liable to be condoned and accordingly it is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Civil Review No. 99 of 2010 Heard. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 14.10.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 14224/2008 ( Vijay Kumar versus HRTC and others). The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated on 5th April, 2006, which was not specifically assailed in the writ petition namely CWP(T) No. 14224/2008, (Vijay Kumar versus HRTC & Ors.). However, keeping in view the prayer of the petitioner in the said writ petition, the writ petition was not allowed and the same was dismissed. We do not find anything is to be considered within the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC or the earlier order dated 14.10.209 cannot be recalled in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constintution. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioner has not challenged his termination order, he is at liberty to challenge this order in accordance with law. ( R.B. Misra) Judge 23rd September, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (jai) Judge