Serial No. 5 Regular cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 5297/2022 in RP No. 72/2022 UT of J&K and Anr. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA V/s Ghulam Mohiud Din Dar and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Ashraf, Advocate vice Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE (ORDER) 07.02.2025 This petition for review of the Judgment dated 20.02.2019, passed by this Court in LPA(SW) No. 196/2018 is delayed by 1274 days. Having regard to the nature of controversy raised in the review petition we are of the opinion that delay is condoned so that review petition is considered on merits. The application CM No. 5297/2022 is accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Review petition is condoned. CM disposed of. RP No. 72/2022 This is petition filed by the UT of J&K, seeking review of the Judgment dated 20.02.2019 passed by this Court in LPA(SW) No. 196/2018, whereby this Court has modified the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 6th of August, 2018, passed in SWP No. 96/2011 titled ‘Dr. Naheed Soz v. State of JK &Ors.’, to the extent that the Government order No. 1192-GAD of 2005 dated 27th of September, 2005 as well as the communication No. GAD (Ser) Genl-25/96 dated 17th of September, 2010 shall be treated to have been quashed to the extent of respondent No. 4 in the appeal and respondent No. 14 herein. There is further direction that the other part of the impugned order, which directs reconsideration of the case of the respondent No. 14 herein, shall be maintained. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment passed by this Court, which is sought to be reviewed is in accord with the facts of the case and does not call for review or recall. While quashing the Government order dated 27th of September, 2005, and the communication dated 17th September, 2010 (Supra) to the extent of respondent No. 14 herein, this Court has further directed that the stipulation in the Government order to the extent of respondent No. 14 herein shall remain intact insofar as it pertains to reconsidering the case of respondent No. 14 herein. The direction of this Court only mandates reconsideration of the case of respondent No. 14-Dr. Naheed Soz. Needless to mention that the other part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was impugned in LPA(SW) No. 196/2018, clearly directs the official respondents to accord fresh consideration to the case of respondent No. 14 herein in accordance with law and having regard to number of years of service she had put in. This direction cannot be construed as a mandamus to necessarily direct the release or grant of pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. The Court has only asked for reconsideration that too in accordance with law. If on Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document consideration, the official respondents find that the respondent No. 14 herein is entitled to pension under law, appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances can be passed by the respondents. It appears that the instant review petition was filed on the apprehension that the direction passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld by the learned Division Bench necessarily mandates the grant or release of pensionary benefits in favour of respondent No. 14. We find this apprehension without basis. The review petition is, therefore, not maintainable, same is accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM(s). (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.02.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document