HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 112 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present review application has been filed with the prayer to review of the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Court on the following grounds: "B. Because, letter dated 11.09.2003 was for recording petitioner as nominee of late employee addressed to Divisional Manager Northern Railway which was wrongly presumed as letter for nomination in 'Bank'. C.Because, if there is ?? nomination or declaration made by Govt. Servant while in service or at the time of retirement such a person cannot be deprived from family pension as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in (1999) 5 S.C.C. 237 G.L. Bhatia Vs. Union of India. This was not considered by the Hon'ble Court while that this legal ground was taken in para-17 of the writ petition. D. Because, after death of father the petitioner applied on 17.04.2017 for family pension on the basis of disability / handicapped which remained pending despite several reminders dated 22.10.2019, 27.12.2019, and 27.06.2022. The representation dated 17.4.2017 was not decided thereafter, original application was filed before Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal ought to have make a direction for disposal of the said representation but illegally dismissed original application, on the basis of report of enquiry officer." 3. Based on the above grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court i.e. Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others in Civil Appeal No.1635 of 2013, wherein it is held that relief against the recovery cannot be a right of the employee and further the petitioner has willingly deposited the total amount of Rs.9,56,276/- before the respondent- Institution. The said aspect is also not considered while deciding the matter and on perusal of the order passed and the grounds raised, there is no material fact or irregularity, hence, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Registrar, Bundelkhand Institute Of Engineering & Technology, Jhansi .....Applicant(s) Manoj Srivastava .....Opposite Party(s) the grounds raised is not satisfactory. 4. Further, learned counsel for the opposite party- petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo and Others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttak and Others in Civil Appeal No.4989 of 2025, wherein the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal stating that the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants of any fraud or misrepresentation by them and recovery is found unsustainable. 5. I have also gone through the grounds taken in the review application and we find that the applicant is seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is beyond the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C as the matter is being re-agitated on merits on the grounds that were already considered in the impugned order. 6. I find that this is nothing but an attempt to get re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. 7. Recently a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us V.K. Birla,J. was a member) in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 25 (DB), has considered the entire history and scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and explained the scope of review. 8. A reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court dated 30.5.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 293 of 2021 (Union Bank Of India vs. Additional District Magistrate, Meerut And 2 Others) and judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 260 of 2023 (Smt. Gopa Bahadur vs. State of U.P. and others). 9. In such view of the matter, we find that the grounds taken in the review application clearly indicates that the applicant is seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible in law. 10. Accordingly, the review application stands rejected. September 18, 2025 AdityaG CMRAD No. 112 of 2025 2 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad