JUDGMENT :

(Soumen Sen, J.)

Both the review applications are arising out of a judgment and order dated 17th September, 2021 passed in MAT 501 of 2020 and MAT 502 of 2020. Both the writ petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The order of the learned Single Judge that the employer is obliged to extend the Dearness Allowance to its employees at the central government rate on and from 1st January, 2009 as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time till the life of ROPA 2009 was affirmed by the Division Bench. The applicants prefer a Special Leave Petition being SLP(c) No. 2947 of 2022. The said special leave petition was dismissed on 4th March, 2022 with the following observation:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case and, more particularly, considering the fact that even till January, 2016 respective employees were paid the Dearness Allowance at the Central Government rates, no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions stand dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” (emphasis supplied)

3. The review of the said order being Review Petition (C) D. No. 12240 of 2022 was also dismissed with the following observations:

“Delay condoned. Having carefully gone through the review petitions, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” (emphasis supplied)

4. Thereafter this application for review has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay.

5. We admit the review petition after condoning the delay.

6. The principal issue raised in this review application is after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and review application arising out of the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court this review application is maintainable.

7. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants have submitted that the dismissal of the special leave petition or the review application would not be a bar in reviewing the order under consideration. Mr. Mookherjee submits that SLP was dismissed in limine without considering the merits of the case. In the SLP it was not mentioned that ROPA 2020 had in the mean time come into operation and option has already been exercised by the members of the associations. It was also not stated that the direction passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is contrary to ROPA 2020. The right to get the order revisited is not restricted by the contours of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to do substantial justice the Court can always review its order. The order passed in that SLP or in review dismissing the review petition filed against dismissal of SLP does not take away this statutory right of the applicants to exercise its statutory right under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India felt that it is not one of such cases which requires admission under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and in deciding whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record, the reviewing court is only required to take such lim