JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—By this application, the applicant who was the respondent in the appeal has prayed for clarification of the order dated 2.8.2005 in the concerned Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003.

2. It is stated that the applicant (respondent in the civil appeal) is living in penury, has no means to pay back the amount which is sought to the recovered. The pension amount has already being attached and the balance is now being sought to be recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation on the other hand submitted that in the guise of application for clarification, review of the judgment is being sought for.

4. By order dated 2nd August, 2005 it was held that the learned Single judge and the Division Bench had erroneously granted the benefits of increment notionally to the applicant during the period when he was out of service.

5. The petition is in essence and substance seeking for a review under the guise of making an application for clarification apparently being fully aware of the normal procedure that such applications for review are not, unless Court directs, listed for open hearing in court, at the initial stage at least, before ordering notice to the oth