IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.126 of 2009 DR.SHEOUPUJAN SINGH @ DR. S.P. SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O RAMESHWAR SINGH, R/O CHITRAKUT NAGAR, ROAD NO. 3, PATNA – 800 012 …. REVIEW PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HRD (DEPT. OF EDUCATION), GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI – 110 001, THROUGH COMMISSIONER, KVS 18 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 016, 2. COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS), 18 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 016, 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, PATNA REGION, PO LOHIA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA – 800 020, 4. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPT. OF EDUCATION, PATNA – 800001, AND 5. THE HEADMASTER, UMAIRABAD HIGH SCHOOL, PO. – BAIDRABAD,DIST. ARWAL, BIHAR……OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner:- Dr. S.P. Singh (Petitioner in person). For the KVS:- Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G.K. Agrawal and Mr. K. Ravisha, Advocates. ------------- 3. 14.05.2009. The petitioner has appeared in person to press this review application. The other side is represented by counsel. Heard the parties. Substance of the points raised by the petitioner, so far as merit of the case is concerned, is the same which was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal which decided the issue against the petitioner. Sufficient material has been discussed by the Tribunal in 2 its order to support the finding that Umairabad High School, where the petitioner worked from 25.09.1961 to 15.07.1973 was a Non-Government Recognized Secondary School. Although the petitioner has advanced strong submission that the school in question was of the nature which made the petitioner’s service in that school qualified to be counted as service in a school belonging to the Government and fully controlled by it, but the findings of the Tribunal cannot be faulted that the school started receiving full grant only after 21.05.1974. None of the Pension Rules cited before us could create any semblance of right for the petitioner for counting his service in such a school for enhancement of his post retiral benefits. In absence of any such right, we find no good ground to exercise power of review and interfere with the earlier order of the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition. The review petition is found to be without merit. It is dismissed accordingly. On the earlier occasion this Court had refused prayer of the petitioner for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Today, also an oral prayer has been made and the same is rejected. 3 It may be indicated here that against the earlier order of the Division Bench dismissing his writ petition, the petitioner had preferred an S.L.P. in the Supreme Court but the same was withdrawn after obtaining leave to file this review application. dk ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )