P. B. Bajanthri, J. – Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that this matter may be taken up along with Serial No. 130, Civil Review No. 309 of 2018 and connected matters.

2. On an earlier occasion we have made an observation that the review petitioners are not entitled to have the benefit of old pension in view of the fact that they were appointed on substantive post subsequent to the date of introduction of New Pension Scheme of the State of Bihar. In this regard, we have already taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Rajmati Devi and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3900-3901 of 2022) [: 2022 (4) BLJ 13 (SC)] decided on 20.05.2022.

3. In view of these factual aspects of the matter and the fact that each of the review petitioners have been substantively appointed to a particular post subsequent to the introduction of New Pension Scheme. Therefore, they are not entitled to have any benefit under the Old Pension Scheme in view of the fact that Old Pension Scheme cease to be existing as on the date of petitioners substantive appointment.

4. Accordingly, these Civil Review petitions are dismissed.

Date: 05-10-2023 (At 02:15 p.m.)

5. Even though these matters were taken up along with Review Application No. 29 of 2023 (at serial no. 1) in the morning session, but, learned counsel for the review petitioners Mr. Rakesh Upadhyay was not present at that time. Therefore, in order to give him opportunity, he has been heard in the afternoon.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the dates and events relating to New Pension Scheme, which was introduced on 01.09.2005 whereas each of the review petitioners were stated to have been appointed in the year 2012 on the post of Teacher. The Teacher post is governed by Rules called ‘Bihar Special Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2010 (for short ‘Rules, 2010), which was introduced with effect from 08.06.2010.

7. The review petitioners were stated to have questioned the validity of certain statutory provisions including portion of the Rules, 2010 cited supra.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present matters are covered by the decisions rendered in the case of Birendra Prasad and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 3911 of 2010) decided on 01.10.2010 by the learned Single Judge and in the case of The State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Nagendra Prasad Arya (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1818 of 2010) [: 2011 (2) BLJ 342] decided on 26.03.2011 by the Division Bench of this Court. Further, he has made every endeavour to recall the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 25362 of 2013 and other connected matters while furnishing synopsis, list of dates and events and written submission on behalf of the review petitioners. These matters could have been taken note of if the C.W.J.C. No. 25362 of 2013 is heard. On the other hand, we are dealing with the Civil Review Petition. Moreover, the scope of Civil Review is limited to the extent under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The Apex Court in the cases of S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 and Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd and Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506 elaborately discussed under what circumstances Court can review the order with reference to Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. It would be relevant to quote Paragraph 14 to 17 of decision rendered in the case of S. Murali Sundaram (supra): –

“14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and has set aside the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010. While allowing the review application the High Court has observed and held that the earlier judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010 was erroneous. Therefore, question which is posed before this Court