The Court mandates compliance with its directives and extends entitlement for consequential benefits without explicit direction.

O R D E R

Read the order dated 15.01.2026.

2. Heard Sri.Arjun S., the learned counsel for the review petitioner, as well as Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.

3. The complaint in this review petition is essentially with reference to the refusal on the part of the respondents in granting consequential reliefs in view of the declaration granted by this Court while passing the judgment sought to be reviewed.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that, even in the light of the declaration granted in the operative portion of the judgment, the respondents are refusing to extend the consequential reliefs while implementing the directions. According to him, if the directions are implemented, the review petitioner would be entitled for refund of various amounts, as highlighted in Annexure-1 dated 21.01.2025 submitted before the 3^rd respondent herein.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Panel Counsel on behalf of the respondents would point out that, if at all any benefits could be extended while implementing the directions issued by this Court, what would be the eligible benefit would have to be considered by the respondents concerned.

6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

7. In my view, as already recorded in the order dated

15.01.2026, there was no requirement for even filing this review petition, as the consequential benefits would have to be extended even without there being a specific direction in that regard. 8. This is especially so when the impugned proceedings denying the benefit of the scheme have been set aside by this Court, along with a declaration that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit extended.

9. In that view of the matter, I hold that it is for the respondents to implement the directions issued by this Court and also to extend such other consequential benefits even without there being any positive directions in that regard.

10. Though there was no time limit prescribed for complying with the directions in the judgment dated 27.12.2024, taking into account the efflux of time, it would be for the respondents to implement the directions issued in the said judgment, also taking into account the observations in this order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

This review petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-