IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.154 of 2008 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range, Purnia 4. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar. …Respondents-Petitioners. Versus Md. Manzoor Alam, son of late Baseeruddin, resident of village/ Mohalla-Phensaha, P.S. Salkhuwa, District Katihar. …Petitioner-Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, G.P. 6 and Mr. Shashi Kant Singh, J.C. to G.P. 6 For the Opp. Party : M/s Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Vijay Kumar and B.S. Mishra, Advocates. --------- 03/ 22.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Although learned counsel for both the parties argued in detail on merits on their respective claims but in view of the specific provisions regarding review case, the instant order is being passed. 3. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 26.02.2007, by which another Bench of this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 12005 of 2006, directing that the writ petitioner (opposite party herein) be reinstated within a period of one month from today, without being entitled to salaries for the period 01.03.2002 until the date of his reinstatement, but the said period shall be counted as the period spent on duties for the purpose of determining qualifying service for pension and other purposes including grant of increments and non-performance of duties for the said period shall not be treated as a break in service. 4. It is stated that against the said order passed in the writ petition, the State of Bihar and others filed L.P.A. No. 1062 of 2007, which was allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to file a review - 2 - petition seeking review of the aforesaid order passed in the writ case since, according to the appellants (petitioners herein), there was no admission before the Hon’ble Single Judge that the Government relaxed the Rule to appoint the original writ petitioner as a constable. 5. The said Hon’ble Single Judge has considered the matter in detail while passing the order sought to be reviewed, whereafter he specifically found that there was no dispute that the Government relaxed the said Rule to appoint the writ petitioner as a reward for his bravery and that the Government consciously relaxed the Rule to appoint the writ petitioner as it neither appears from the impugned order nor it is the contention in the counter-affidavit that the facts, upon which relaxation could be effected, were non-existent. 6. It may be noted that there is no material at all before me to show that no such admission was made before the Court which decided the writ case and hence this Court has to go with the order of the said Court, which shows that such admission was made on behalf of the respondents and that there was also absence of any specific denial in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the writ petition. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any reason or occasion to review the impugned order and, accordingly, this petition is dismissed. MPS/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)