R. SUBBIAH, J
The respondents 1 and 2 in WP No. 2363 of 2013 have come forward with this Review Application seeking to review the order dated 05.01.2015 passed in WP No. 2363 of 2013 by the Division Bench of this Court.
2. The respondents 1 to 124 herein, as petitioners, have filed the above said WP No. 2363 of 2013 before this Court praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 on the file of the first respondent and to quash paragraph No.5 therein in so far as it restricts the re-fixation of the pay to the level of first/second level promotion posts only, and to consequently direct the respondents to extend appropriate revised scales of pay of Selection Grade/Special Grade driver to the petitioners forthwith on the basis of the VIth Pay Scale Recommendations (Revised Pay Rules) as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell Department) dated 13.04.1998 and other benefits thereto.
3. According to the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 124 herein, they are http://www.judis.nicw.inorking as Drivers in the High Court, both at Principal Bench, Madras and the additional Bench at Madurai. According to the writ petitioners, as Drivers, they have no promotional avenues open to them and therefore, most of them have stagnated in the post of Drivers for decades thereby entailing them for grant of selection grade on completion of 10 years and special grade upon completion of 20 years of service. As the writ petitioners have stagnated in the same post for years together, in which they were appointed, they have sought for better scales of pay on the ground that there is no promotional avenues open to them. The Government Drivers Association, in which the petitioners are also members, took up the issue in regard to grant of better scales of pay due to there being no promotional avenues for the drivers and therefore, the same were placed by the Government before a committee and based on the report of the committee, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 as per which the selection grade and special grade pay was ordered to be revised based on the existing pay scales as per Schedule II annexed to the said Government Order. The writ petitioners placed heavy reliance on the said Government Order, wherein it was ordered as follows:-
“(a) For the post having no promotional avenue, selection grade and special grade shall be allow as indicated in Schedule II (b) For the post having the promotional post, the selection grade should be limited to the pay scales of the first level promotion and special grade be limited to the pay scales of the second level promotional post.”
4. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that based on the aforesaid order passed by the Government, most of the Heads of Department have extended the benefit of selection/special grade to those who are holding the post of Drivers as http://www.judis.nicth.iney have no promotional avenue. As far as the writ petitioners are concerned, there seems to be a misconception and wrong notion that there are promotional avenues like that of Head Bailiff, Overseer and Sergeant. The fact remains that there was only one promotional post of Overseer, Sergeant and Head Bailiff which was not proportionate enough to accommodate the huge number of Drivers working in the High Court. Further, even the promotional avenue hitherto available to them in the post of Head Bailiff, Sergeant and Overseer stood deleted by virtue of an amendment effected by the Registry of this Court on 08.01.1987. According to the petitioners, as the order passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 has not been extended in their favour, they have submitted representation to the Government. In the representation, the writ petitioners have made reference to the orders passed by this Court at the instance of Drivers working in the other Departments and in whose favour the Government has extended the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. The petitioners placed reliance on one such order dated 30.09.2008 passed in W.P. No. 4288 of 2008 etc., batch and the order passed therein was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.
383 to 391 of 2009. Further, as against the Judgment rendered by the other Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 67 of 2012, the Government has filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) C.C. No. 14715 of 2012 and the same was also dismissed on 10.09.2012 confirming the order passed by this Court. Therefore, according to the writ petitioners, the failure on the part of the official respondents in not extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 is an arbitrary and discriminatory action. It is further contended by the writ petitioners that the order passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 has to be implemented in letter and spirit by extending the benefits of Selection/Special Grade in the scale of pay of http://www.judis.nic.in Rs.5000 and 5500 respectively to them.
5. According to the petitioners, while they were anticipating to get the order passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 extended in their favour, the Government issued a clarification in Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 wherein in para No.5, it was ordered that as follows:-
“5. The Heads of Department/Pay Fixing authorities concerned, while re-fixing the pay of the employees are directed to ensure that in case if the selection grade/special grade scales of pay indicated in the Annexure-I to this letter is more than the first level and second level promotional posts, then in such cases, their selection grade/special grade scales of pay should be restricted to the level of their first level and second level promotional posts only. Necessary illustrations are also appended in Annexure-II to this letter for adoption and compliance scruplously.”
6. According to the petitioners, the clarification issued by the official respondents is contrary to the order passed in G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. According to the petitioners, while issuing the clarification, the official respondents did not take note of the fact that the object behind issuing the order in G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 is to ensure that those who are holding a post without any promotional avenue should be allowed to draw monetary benefits. While so, the clarification issued by the official respondents runs contrary to the object with which the order was passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners have filed the above writ petition.
7. The claim of the writ petitioners was opposed by the respondents 1 http://www.judis.nica.inn d 2 in the writ petition, who are the review applicants herein, by contending that the claim of the writ petitioners are based on an erroneous fixation of selection grade and special grade at Rs.5000-150-8000 and 5500-175-9000 respectively to Drivers in some of the Departments. According to the respondents 1 and 2/ review applicants, the Drivers in all the Government Departments were in the pay band of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660 prior to 01.01.1996 and it was revised to Rs.3200-85- 4900 as per Sl.No.XX in Schedule I of the order passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998. If Rs.3200-85-4900 is the ordinary grade pay, as per Schedule II, selection grade and special Grade pay will be Rs.4000-100-6000 and Rs.4300-100-6000. According to the respondents 1 and 2, in certain departments, pay was erroneously granted by conferring selection grade pay at Rs.5000-150- 8000 and Special Grade pay at Rs.5500-175-9000 to the Drivers. On noticing the erroneous fixation, the Government issued a letter in Letter No.96900/PC-98-2 dated 31.12.1998 to review such erroneous fixation and effect recoveries, wherever such excess payments have been made on such wrong fixation. Therefore, it was contended that such an erroneous fixation of pay cannot be cited as a precedent by the writ petitioners and they are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. The Division Bench of this Court, taking into account the rival submissions, has allowed the Writ Petition on 05.01.2015 mainly on the ground that several orders were passed by this Court at the instance of Drivers working in other Departments and they were also implemented by the official respondents. In para No.5, 6 and 7 of the order dated 05.01.2015 of the Division Bench of this Court, it was concluded as follows:-
“5. Accordingly a number of writ petitions came to be filed http://www.judis.nic.in from the drivers of various departments and in all those writ petitions, the High Court ordered fixing of their pay in the selection http://www.judis.nic.in grade and special grade in accordance with Schedule II of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998. In W.P.No.25889/2010 decided by one of us (Hon'ble Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar), relying on an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.383 to 391/2009 decided on 01.09.2009, allowed the claim of the writ petitioners therein and directed re-fixation of the pay of the drivers in the selection grade scale of Rs.5,000-150-8,000 and in the special grade scale of Rs.5,500-175-9,000 in accordance with schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, notified in G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, with a further direction to pay the difference in salary and the arrears of difference in pension with effect from 01.01.1998, based on such re-fixation of pay.
6. Similarly, in another batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.22640, 20543, 23193, 22629 & 22631 of 2012, when a batch of drivers of different departments of the Government made similar claims, their claims were sustained by a learned single Judge of this court (Hon'ble Justice S.Nagamuthu) by order dated 17.09.2012. Another learned single judge of this court (Hon'ble Justice S.Manikumar), following the order dated 16.11.2010 made in W.P.No.25889/2010 referred supra, allowed a similar claim of a driver in Highways Division of Cuddalore in W.P.No.20256/2010 by order dated 19.01.2011. The said order came to be confirmed by a Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 18.01.2012 in W.A.No.67/2012. As against the said judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.01.2012 in W.A.No.67/2012, Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(C) No.14715/2012 came to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 10.09.2012. Similarly in W.P.No.23193/2012 (batch) similar claims of the drivers were upheld by a single judge and the same came to be confirmed by a Division Bench of this court pronounced in W.A.No.526/2013. A review application filed for revising the said judgment of the Division Bench pronounced in W.A.No.526/2013 also came to be dismissed in the SR stage in Rev. Application Sr.No.24899 OF 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Rev.Application Sr.No.24899/2014 by an order dated 14.08.2014. After the dismissal of the review application, the said order was implemented by the Government by issuing G.O.(Ms).No.257 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 21.10.2014.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7. The orders referred to above were also given effect to. However, the petitioners herein were denied the said benefit on the premise that they did have promotional avenue. All the petitioners are drivers employed in the High Court of Madras at its Principal seat as well as its Madurai Bench. The total number of drivers exceeds 100 and there were only two posts viz. Head Bailiff and Sergeant, to which the drivers of the High Court of Madras could be promoted. Considering the fact that virtually there was little/no scope of promotion and the full benefit of fixation according to the second schedule of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 was sought to be denied on the premise that there were such promotional posts, Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Service Rules came to be amended giving retrospective the amendment with effect from 08.01.1987 removing the post of drivers from the feeder category for promotion to the categories of 1A and 1B. The said amendment was notified in Roc No.08/2013/RAC dated 14.11.2013 has also been notified by effecting publication in Part 3 Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 08.01.2014. After such amendment even the remotest possibility of a driver of the Madras High Court getting promoted to a higher post has been removed. Under such circumstances, denying the full benefit of the selection grade and special grade pay scales to the petitioners shall be totally unethical and unjustifiable.
8. In view of the previous decisions cited supra and in view of the amendment of the Madras High Court Service Rules with retrospective effect, the Government Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2013 has got to be quashed insofar as it restricts the fixation of pay of the drivers of the Madras High Court both at the Principal seat and the Madurai Bench in selection grade and special grade to a scale which is below the scale provided in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, they shall be entitled to refixation of their pay in the selection grade and special grade in the relevant pay scales of Rs.5,000-150-8000 and Rs.5,500-175-9,000 respectively. Accordingly, we sustain the claim of the petitioners made in this writ petition and hold that they are entitled to the relief sought for.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and paragraph 5 of the Government Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 is quashed insofar as it restricts the re-fixation of the pay applicable to the scale of first and second level promotion posts only and the petitioners are held to be entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. To be more precise the petitioners shall be entitled to fixation of their pay in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-150-8,000 from the date of their movement to the selection grade and in the pay scale of Rs.5,500-175-9,000 from the date of their movement to the special grade. The order of the court shall be implemented within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
9. It is this order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 2363 of 2013 that is sought to be reviewed by the review applicants in this Review Application.
10. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs. Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the review applicants would vehemently contend that the selection grade/special grade scale of pay of Drivers for the Ordinary Grade Scale of pay of Rs.975-1660 is Rs.1200- 2040 and Rs.1320-2040. As per G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998, the pay scale was revised from Rs.975-1660 to Rs.3200-4900. As per Schedule II of G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998, it was specifically indicated that for the ordinary grade pay of Rs.3200-4900, the selection grade/special grade scales of pay would be Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively. However, contrary to the order passed in G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998, in certain Departments, the Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay was erroneously fixed as Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 considering the ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000. When it was brought to the notice of the Government, the appropriate authority has clarified by a letter dated 31.12.1998 to recover the excess payments made by re-
http://www.judis.nicfi.ixning the scale of pay of Drivers in the appropriate scales as indicated in Schedule II of GO Ms.No.162 dated 13.04.1998. However, based on the erroneous fixation, some of the Drivers have filed Writ Petition No. 34800 of 2006 seeking to extend the same benefit in their favour and it was ordered by this Court on 06.08.2007 by quashing the letter of clarification issued by the Government on 31.12.1998 stating that a clarificatory letter cannot over ride a Government Order and directing the Government to consider the claim of the petitioners therein afresh by taking note of the order passed in G.O. Ms. No.162, Finance (PC) Department dated 13.04.1998. Accordingly, the Government, after careful consideration of the claim of the petitioners therein, passed an order of rejection on 01.10.2007.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that by order dated 13.09.2008 in WP No. 4288 of 2008 filed by the Drivers of other Departments, it was held that the Clarification letter issued by the Government will have no force or it will not outweigh the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998. Accordingly, by the said order dated 13.09.2008, the Government was directed to implement the order in G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998 in favour of the petitioners therein within eight weeks. As against the order dated 13.09.2008, the Government has filed W.A. Nos. 383 to 391 of 2009 and it was dismissed. The Government has also filed SLP (C) No. 35969 of 2009 and it was also dismissed on 25.02.2015. In the meantime, a similar claim made by the Drivers of other Departments in a batch of writ petition in WP Nos. 1418 of 2013 etc., batch was dismissed by this Court on 18.11.2013 by holding that the Ordinary Grade Scale of pay of the Drivers is Rs.3200-85-4900 for which selection grade pay is Rs.4000-100-6000 and Special Grade pay is Rs.4300-100-6000, while so, the petitioners therein cannot claim that they are entitled to higher selection grade http://www.judis.nic.in /special grade scales of pay at Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 respectively.
Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2013, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.114, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 06.05.2014 setting out the procedure to be followed for fixing the selection grade and special grade of pay.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that in yet another batch of cases filed by the Government in W.A. Nos. 1392 of 2013 etc., the Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 08.07.2015, allowed the Writ Appeals by holding that the Drivers are only entitled to the selection grade/special grade scales of pay of Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 which is corresponding to the ordinary grade pay scale of Rs.3200-4900. Reference was also placed by the learned Additional Advocate General to the Judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 392 of 2014 allowing the writ appeals filed by the Government on the same ground. In effect, the main contention urged by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Review Applicants is that the ordinary grade pay of Drivers is Rs.3200-85-4900 for which the selection Grade pay is Rs.4000-100-6000 and Special Grade pay is Rs.4300-100-6000 and there is no scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 or Rs.5500-9000 respectively and it was erroneously fixed by some of the Departments and which was cited as a precedent by the Drivers working in various Departments. In such circumstances, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 2363 of 2013 has to be reviewed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
13. Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 124, would oppose the Review Application by contending that the Government passed G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998 taking note of the fact that the Drivers working in the various Department have no promotional avenue and therefore, they are eligible for a special scale of pay. As far as the Drivers working in the High Court, both at Principal Bench and Additional Bench at Madurai are concerned, even the promotional avenue hitherto available to them in the post of Head Bailiff, Sergeant and Overseer stood deleted by virtue of an amendment effected by the Registry of this Court on 08.01.1987. Further, it is not the case of the review applicants that their submissions as regards the applicability of Scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 were not considered by the Division Bench of this Court, while passing the order dated 05.01.2015, therefore, he would contend that the relief of review sought for by the Review Applicants is not legally sustainable.
14. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 125th respondent would support the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 124 by contending that several orders have been passed by this Court in favour of the Drivers working in other Departments and they were implemented by the Government by extending the benefits of G.O. Ms. No.162 dated 13.04.1998. Further, the Government also issued G.O. Ms. No. 257, Finance (CMPC) Department dated 21.10.2014 and extended the benefits of the order passed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court. In any event, the grounds which are agitated by the Review Applicants have already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 05.01.2015 and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Review Application.
http://www.judis.nic.in
15. We have heard the counsel on either side and perused the materials on record, including the order dated 05.01.2015, which is sought to be reviewed.
The main ground on which the Review Application has been filed by the Review Applicants is that the ordinary scale of pay of the Driver is Rs.3200-85-4900 for which the corresponding selection grade and special grade scale of pay is Rs.4000- 100-6000 and Rs.4300-100-6000 respectively. While so, in some of the Departments, based on series of orders passed by this Court, the scale of pay of the Drivers for selection grade/special grade was erroneously fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 and on noticing the error, a clarification was issued by the Government. Challenging the same, the respondents 1 to 124 herein have filed WP No. 2363 of 2013 and it was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that after the Order dated 05.01.2015 passed in WP No. 2363 of 2013 by the Division Bench of this Court, two other Division Bench of this Court have categorically held that the Drivers are not entitled to the selection grade/special grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 as it was erroneously fixed. Reliance was also placed by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review applicants to the subsequent Judgment dated 08.07.2015 passed in WA Nos. 1392 of 2013 and also the Judgment dated 12.06.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 392 of 2014 in support of his contention.
16. On perusal of the order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 2363 of 2013, which is sought to be reviewed and the grounds raised in this Review Application, we find that the grounds raised in this Review Application were also raised before the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 2363 of 2013. It is not the case of the Review Applicants that the grounds raised by them in this Review Application were not considered by the Division http://www.judis.nic.in Bench of this Court or there is an error apparent on the face of the Order dated 05.01.2015. The grounds urged in the present Review application have already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 05.01.2015. Useful reference can be made to Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the order dated 05.01.2015 which reads as follows:-
3. The VI Pay Commission recommendations were given effect to by notifying the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998. The same was notified in G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. The revised pay scale prescribed for drivers in various departments is Rs.4,000-100-6,000. While revising the pay scales of various posts, considering the lack of promotional avenue and stagnation in one and the same post, selection grade and special grade scales were also allowed and notified.
4. So far as drivers of various departments of Government are concerned, their ordinary scale, selection grade scale and special grade scale fixed as per the above said Rules are as follows:
i) Ordinary Grade : Rs.4,000-100-6,000
ii) Selection Grade : Rs.5,000-150-8,000
iii) Special Grade : Rs.5,500-175-9,000 http://www.judis.nic.in However problem arose in fixing the selection grade pay and special grade pay to the drivers and the drivers in a number of departments were granted selection grade scale and special grade scale in accordance with Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 and such benefit was denied to the drivers in some of the departments alone, on the premise that their selection grade pay and special grade pay should be restricted to the first level and second level promotional posts respectively. Hence on movement to the selection grade and to the special grade, their pay was fixed in accordance with the pay scales Rs.4,300-100-6,000 and Rs.4,500- 125-7,000 respectively without even considering whether those higher scales were applicable to the promotional posts for the drivers.
17. Therefore, we find that the grounds which are raised by the Review Applicants in this Review Application has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 05.01.2015. Further, we find that the present Review Application has been filed mainly on the ground that after the Division Bench of this Court allowed WP No. 2363 of 2013 filed by the respondents 1 to 124 herein on 05.01.2015, two other Division Benches of this Court has passed orders dated 08.07.2015 in WA Nos. 1392 of 2013 and 12.06.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 392 of 2014 and taken a contra view. This submission of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be countenanced for the reason that the grounds which were already canvassed by the Review Applicants in WP No. 2363 of 2013 is once again agitated in this Review Application. It is well settled that a Review Application cannot be entertained to re-argue the grounds which were already agitated. A review is permissible only if it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or certain vital points which were agitated have not been considered in the order which is sought to be reviewed. In the present case, the Review Applicants have not satisfied the above said two aspects. In this context, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others) reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, after examining various judgments has laid down the circumstances, as to when the Court can review its own judgments. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:
"12.This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor http://www.judis.nic.in mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient "
... ... ...
"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
18. In the light of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Review Applicants in this Review Application cannot be entertained and the review application is not maintainable. If the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the Order dated 05.01.2015, which is sought to be reviewed, has been varied or modified by another or subsequent Division Bench of this Court, it is not a ground for reviewing the order dated 05.01.2015 and it is not open to the Review Applicants to file the present Review Application.
In the light of the above discussion, we find that the Review Applicants have not made out any ground for reviewing the order dated 05.01.2015 passed in WP No. 2363 of 2013. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(R.P.S.J.,) (A.D.J.C.J.,) 11-09-2017 rsh Index : Yes http://www.judis.nic.in
R. SUBBIAH, J
and
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
rsh Pre-delivery Order in Review Apln No.153/2016 11-09-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in