1. State of Kerala and the District Collector, Kollam are the review petitioners. They sought to review the judgment dated 23.3.2009 passed in W.P.(C).No.29695 of 2005. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Apex Court in State of M.P and Another v. Devkinandan Maheshwari (2003(3) SCC 183) had held that the pension would be payable from the date of order of sanction. He also submitted that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1419/2006 & 1818/2006 and therefore the direction in the judgment that the respondent/petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of application would conflict with the judgment laid down by the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court and therefore require reconsideration. Hence the review petition.

2. On the basis of the said two decisions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondent/petitioner is entitled to pension only from the date of order of sanction. Admittedly, these two decisions were not brought to the notice of the court at the time when the matter was heard. The question is whether the judgment under review can be recalled on the basis of the said two decisions cited in the review petition. Evidently, there was omission on the part of the review petitioners to cite the decisions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court. The question is whether the omission on the part of the counsel to cite an authority of law does amount to an error apparent on the face of record so as to constitute a ground for reviewing the judgment. The Apex Court in Dokka Samuel v. Dr.Jacob Lazarus Chelly (1997 (4) SCC 478) held that the omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgment showing that there is an error apparent on the face of record. Since the review petitioners had committed an error in not bringing to the notice of the court the relevant precedents, in view of the decision of the Apex Court cited supra, and for the reason that failure to bring to the notice of this Court the decisions on the subject, cannot be held to be a ground for review of the judgment. In the said view, the review petition filed by the State is not maintainable and therefore liable to be dismissed.

3. The present case has a long chequered history. It is a finest example of a case where a senior citizen, now aged 90, has meted out bitter experience at the hands of a recalcitrant bureaucrat. His application for pension is dated 29.12.1995. At the time of application for State pension he was aged about 75 years. His application was considered by the Government and the first order was passed on 18.5.1987. The application was rejected stating that the certificates produced by the applicant are not acceptable. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said order. Again the Government considered his application, and by order dated 4.5.1989 his claim was rejected stating that the applicant had not produced any fresh evidence. These two orders are challenged by the applicant in O.P.No.10556 of 2000. The said orders are produced as Exts.P2 and P3 in the said original petition. This Court by judgment dated 31.5.2005, after observing that the petitioner is a person aged 75 years, held that it is only just and proper that the petitioner be granted another opportunity to explain his case to satisfy the respondent that he is a genuine freedom fighter as defined under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Based on the directions issued by this Court, Government considered the pension application for the third time. Government by order dated 11.8.2005 passed an order stating that the documents available and made available by the petitioner are not sufficient enough to pass orders granting sanction for pension. Therefore the Government passed the third or