JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. The review petitioners by way of instituting the present review petition have prayed for a review of the order dated 06.02.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C).No.3635/2017. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the present Review Petition being relevant is noticed, as hereunder. The petitioners in WP(C).No.3635/2017, had instituted the said writ petition raising a grievance with regard to the non release of the salaries of their respective husbands w.e.f. August, 2007, till the date of their death, with a further prayer for authorizing to them family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by their deceased husbands. It was projected in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner no.1, Late Pradip Dutta was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in No.607 Begenagara Amlakhiguri Lower Primary School, Dhemaji, in the year 1989, and he had continued to render service in such capacity till the date of his death occasioning on 08.05.2015. Likewise, it was projected that the husband of the petitioner no.2, Late Ghana Saikia @ Ghana Kanta Saikia, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Ghinai Lower Primary School, Dhemaji, in the year 1989, and he had also continued to discharge his duties in such capacity till his death occasioning on 11.06.2015. In the writ petition it was projected that the husbands of the petitioners by raising a grievance with regard to non release of their salaries, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.653/2008. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 25.04.2008, requiring the Departmental authorities to place the case of the petitioners before the Expert Committee constituted in terms of the decision of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2006, in WP (C) No. 2147/1999 [Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar Vs. State of Assam and Ors.,  (2006) (2) GLT 2016]. It was thereafter projected that the husbands of the petitioners continued to discharge their services in the respective Schools till the date of their death, however without being authorized any salaries. State of Assam and Ors.,  (2006) (2) GLT 2016]. It was thereafter projected that the husbands of the petitioners continued to discharge their services in the respective Schools till the date of their death, however without being authorized any salaries. It was further categorically stated in the said writ petitions by the petitioners that the services of their respective husbands were never terminated and no termination order came to be served to their husbands during their respective service tenures. It is submitted that the husbands of the petitioners had received respective salaries till July, 2007. In support of their case the petitioners had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam and Ors ., (2016) 1 SCC 622 . The respondent authorities had filed an affidavit in the above writ petition and therein, had contended that the husbands of the petitioners were appointed in the year 1989, against non existent post without following any selection process. It was also projected that the services of the husbands of the petitioners were terminated vide an order dated 12.05.1992. It was further projected that around 752 numbers of teachers came to be terminated in the year 1992, in Dhemaji and Lakhimpur Districts, and the names of the husbands of the petitioners figured in the list of such teachers whose services were terminated. The contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petition that the orders of termination were never served upon the husbands of the petitioners during their service tenures, was however not disputed. It is in the above background that the said writ petition was taken up for final consideration and this Court had vide order dated 06.02.2024, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition upholding the entitlement of the husbands of the petitioners to receive their salaries w.e.f. August, 2006, till the death of their respective death. This Court further proceeded to direct that the petitioners were entitled to receive their family pension w.e.f. the date of death of their respective husbands and the same was directed to be computed and released to the petitioners. Being aggrieved the State Respondents have now instituted the present Review Petition. 4. This Court further proceeded to direct that the petitioners were entitled to receive their family pension w.e.f. the date of death of their respective husbands and the same was directed to be computed and released to the petitioners. Being aggrieved the State Respondents have now instituted the present Review Petition. 4. The review petitioners in the review petition have contended that the services of the husbands of the respondent nos.1 and 2, being terminated in the year 1992, the husbands of the respondent nos.1 and 2, cannot be deemed to be in service after termination of their services and accordingly, they would not be entitled to any arrears of salary after the date of such termination of their services. It was projected that the husbands of the respondent nos.1 and 2 were being released their salaries erroneously till July 2007. It is submitted that the opposite parties no.1 and 2, herein, i.e. the petitioners in WP(C).No.3635/2017, on account of the fact that the service of their respective husbands were terminated, would not be entitled to any family pension and pensionary benefits. The review petitioners for the purpose of imputing knowledge of termination of their services upon the husbands of the petitioners, during their service tenure, had relied on a order dated 31.10.2013, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C).No.622/2009. Basing on the said grounds it is prayed that the order dated 06.02.2024, would mandate a review. 5. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the review petitioners by reiterating the grounds raised in the review petition has submitted that the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had earlier approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.635/2008. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2008, requiring the Departmental authorities to place the case of the husbands of the petitioners, herein, before the Expert Committee as constituted in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court in the case of Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar (supra). It is submitted that the Expert Committee as constituted in the matter had considered the cases of the husbands of the petitioners and had rejected their claims for being authorized their arrear of salaries by holding that the husbands of the petitioners were appointed without following any due process and against non existent post. 6. Mr. It is submitted that the Expert Committee as constituted in the matter had considered the cases of the husbands of the petitioners and had rejected their claims for being authorized their arrear of salaries by holding that the husbands of the petitioners were appointed without following any due process and against non existent post. 6. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, further submits that being aggrieved it was found that the husband of the opposite party no.1 Pradip Dutta, along with others, had instituted a writ petition being WP(C).No.622/2009, before this Court assailing report of the Expert Committee and praying for authorization of their salaries which were in arrears. It is submitted that the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2013, and a perusal of the said order would reveal that the husband of the opposite parties no.1, atleast was in the know how of the termination of his services effected vide the order dated 02.05.1992. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, submits that the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were not entitled to their respective salaries after 1992, on the termination of their services having being effected. It is submitted that the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2, on account of certain illegalities committed by certain Departmental Officials were found to have been authorized their salaries w.e.f. 1992 to 2007. However, such authorization of their salaries would not undo the consequence coming into effect, on their services being terminated in the year 1992. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, submits that the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2, would not be entitled to receive their salaries w.e.f. August 2007, and their services having been terminated, the termination order holding the field, the opposite party nos.1 and 2, herein, would also not entitled to be authorized any family pension and pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by their respective husbands. 7. Per contra Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2, submits that the respondent authorities had filed an affidavit in the proceedings of WP(C).No.3635/2017, and, therein, had not taken a plea that the orders of termination, purportedly issued towards terminating the services of the husbands of the petitioners in the year 1992, were infact served upon the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2, during their service career. He submits that in the said affidavit it was only projected that the names of the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were included in the list of 752 teachers whose services were terminated in the year 1992, in the district of Dhemaji and Lakhimpur. He further submits that the said contentions raised by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, in the affidavit filed in the proceedings of WP(C).No.3635/2017, was duly appreciated by this Court in the order dated 06.02.2024, and it was concluded by this Court that from the said contentions it was not clear as to whether the orders terminating the services of the husbands of the petitioners were infact served upon the husbands of the petitioners. 8. Mr. S. Borthakur, by referring to the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C).No.622/2009, has submitted that, therein, also a contention was raised on behalf of the husband of the opposite parties no.1, herein, that the order of termination was never served upon him after the same was purportedly issued on 07.05.1992. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur, submits that the order of termination having not been demonstrated to have been served upon the husbands of the opposite parties, herein, it cannot be deemed that the services of the husbands of the petitioners had been terminated at any point of time during their service tenure. He submits that the contentions raised in the writ petitions that the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 continued to render their services in their respective schools till the date of their respective death, was not denied by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them in the proceedings of WP(C).No.3635/2017. 9. Mr. S. Borthakur submits that in the facts and circumstances as obtaining in the matter, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulu Devi (supra), squarely, applies to the case of the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and this Court having appreciated the said position and passed the impugned order dated 06.02.2024, the same would not mandate any review. 10. Mr. S. Borthakur, further submits that it is a settled position of law that the review petition would be maintainable only if it is permissible to accept the stand of the review petitioners, herein, without a detailed hearing and/or reasoning being advanced. 10. Mr. S. Borthakur, further submits that it is a settled position of law that the review petition would be maintainable only if it is permissible to accept the stand of the review petitioners, herein, without a detailed hearing and/or reasoning being advanced. He further submits that the view taken by this Court in the order dated 06.02.2024, being a plausible view, it would not be permissible to the review petitioners to question the same and the only remedy available to them would be to file an appeal in the matter. He submits that the present review petition has been instituted only for the purpose of re-arguing the matter without, however demonstrating any error apparent on the face of the records. In the above premises Mr. S. Borthakur submits that the present review petition would mandate to be dismissed. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. This Court vide order 06.02.2024, passed in WP(C).No.3635/2017, had proceeded to pass the direction so passed, therein, by appreciating the fact that the respondents had not disputed the contentions of the petitioners, therein, that the orders of termination dated 07.05.1992 issued in respect of their respective husbands, were never served upon them during the period they had served in their respective schools. This Court had also found that the husbands of the petitioners were authorized their due salaries till the month of July, 2007, even after it was projected that their services were terminated vide issuance of an order dated 07.05.1992. The categorical contentions made in the connected writ petition by the petitioners to the above effect was also not found to have been disputed by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them in the matter. This Court further appreciated the fact that the contentions of the petitioners in WP(C).No.3635/2017, that their respective husbands had continued in their services in their respective schools till the date of their death, was also not found to have been disputed by the respondents in the affidavit filed in the proceedings of the connected writ petitions. 13. This Court further appreciated the fact that the contentions of the petitioners in WP(C).No.3635/2017, that their respective husbands had continued in their services in their respective schools till the date of their death, was also not found to have been disputed by the respondents in the affidavit filed in the proceedings of the connected writ petitions. 13. Accordingly, this Court had proceeded to pass the order dated 06.02.2024, directing for release of arrear of salaries of the husbands of the petitioners for the period w.e.f. August, 2007, till the date of their respective death, along with authorization to the opposite party nos.1 and 2, herein, their respective Family Pension and other pensionary benefits. 14. The review petitioners in support of their claims had relied upon order dated 31.10.2013, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C).No.622/2009, involving the husband of the opposite party no.1. It is the contention of the respondents relying on the said order dated 31.10.2013, that the husband of the opposite party no.1 was aware of the termination of his services being effected vide the order dated 07.05.1992. This Court had perused the order dated 31.10.2013, and finds that a categorical contention was raised on behalf of the petitioners, therein, including the husband of the opposite party no.1, that the orders of termination were not received by the petitioners, therein, and accordingly there was no occasion for making a challenge to the same. 15. The said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C).No.622/2009, is also found to have been reiterated in the proceedings of WP(C).No.3635/2017 before this Court, however, is not found to have been disputed. The review petitioners in the present review petition has also not brought on record any material to demonstrate the fact that the orders of termination issued in respect of the husbands of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 were infact served upon them at any point of time during their service tenure. 16. In view of the above position, the conclusion reached by this Court that the case of the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulu Devi (supra), would not mandate a re-consideration. 17. 16. In view of the above position, the conclusion reached by this Court that the case of the husbands of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulu Devi (supra), would not mandate a re-consideration. 17. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present review petition has been instituted by the review petitioners only seeking for a re-hearing in the matter, without highlighting any error existing in the conclusions drawn by this Court in the order dated 06.02.2024, passed in WP(C).No.3635/2017. 18. No error having been highlighted, the view taken by this Court in the order dated 06.02.2024 in WP(C).No.3635/2017, being a plausible view, in the considered view of this Court, the present review petition would not be maintainable and the same would mandate to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the present review petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.