This application, under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, is filed seeking review of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos. 2297 of 2003 and 1036 of 2004 dated 26.6.2014.

2. The relief sought for by the review petitioner herein, in WP Nos. 15826 of 1990 and 19768 of 1994, was to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Executive Engineer (E3) from the date his immediate junior was promoted, and to promote him as a Divisional Engineer from the date of promotion of his immediate juniors, with all consequential benefits by treating non-consideration of his claims for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petitions by order dated 5.9.2003, and directed the respondents to consider the case of the review petitioner herein for further promotion to the next higher posts of Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer with effect from the date his immediate juniors were considered, and to pass appropriate orders within four months.

4. Against, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP Nos. 15826 of 1990 and 19768 of 1994 dated 5.9.2003, the respondents in both the writ petitions preferred appeals in WA Nos.2297 of 2003 and 1036 of 2004. By its order in WA Nos.2297 of 2003 and 1036 of 2004 dated 26.6.2014, a Division Bench of this Court directed as under:

“We therefore dispose of the writ appeals directing that-

(a) the respondent shall be deemed to have been promoted to E3 category in the year 1998 with effect from the date on which his immediate junior in E2 category was promoted;

(b) similarly, he shall be deemed to have been promoted to E4 category from the date on which his immediate junior in E3 category was promoted;

(c) the retirement benefits or pension, as the case may be, for the respondent shall be worked out, duly taking those two days of promotion, into account and by allowing the scales of pay attached to those posts; and

(d) the necessary re-working of the retirement benefits or pension, as the case may be, including payment of differential amount, shall be undertaken in this behalf within three months from today.

The common judgment in the writ petitions shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.”

5. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, would submit that, while the review petitioner was no doubt granted promotion to the category of E3 with effect from the year 1988, and to the post of Divisional Engineer in E4 category from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted in the E4 category, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that, by the date on which the order under review was passed, the review petitioner had retired from service after having been promoted to the higher E5, E6 and E7 categories belatedly; and he had retired from service while working in the E7 category. Learned Counsel would submit that, while the review petitioner was granted notional fitment in E3 and E4 categories, from the date of his deemed promotion, the respondents had, in view of the order of the Division Bench, denied him the consequential benefits of notional fitment in E5, E6 and E7 categories from an earlier date; and, hence, the order necessitated review. We must express our inability to agree.

6. A party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; Northern India Caters (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167; Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845; G.L. Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189; O.N. Mohindroo v. District Judge,