JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this application moved by the State of Rajasthan & ors. (the applicants) for recalling the order dated 16-9-1991, passed by this court, are as under The respondent No. 1 Chandra Prakash Jain was earlier employed as an Inspector in the Cooperative Department of the applicant-State of Rajasthan. He was sent on deputation for a period of two years vide order dated 20-9-1976 to work as the Manager in the Jaipur Nagaur Anchlik Gramin Bank. His period of deputation was extended from time to time and, ultimately, on an application having been made by him, he was allowed voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 20-9-1981 under rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. After his retirement, his lien with the State Government came to an end as he continued to work in the above said bank. His pension was fixed in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, certain benefits in the form of Dearness Allowance etc. were given to those who had retired from the service of the applicant and such benefit was given to the petitioner also, but, later on, it was withdrawn from him. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (the respondent No.2), who allowed his appeal vide order dated 10-9-1990. The applicants challenged the said order by filing a writ petition, which came up for hearing on 16-9-1991 on which date the members of the Bar Association boycotted the courts and, as such, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The matter was gone into by us and, after perusing the impugned order, we found that the view taken by the Tribunal was not unreasonable and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed summarily. This application has been moved with a prayer to recall the said order on the ground that on the earlier date of hearing the case was ordered to be fixed on 17-9-1991 but the office had listed it on 16-9-1991. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicants and have also perused the record of the case. 3. It is not disputed before us that when the case was listed on 16-9-1991 it was shown in the cause list and the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner was also shown in the cause list. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicants and have also perused the record of the case. 3. It is not disputed before us that when the case was listed on 16-9-1991 it was shown in the cause list and the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner was also shown in the cause list. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the applicants that, he had not noticed the case or his name in the cause list and during the course of arguments it was not disputed that it was because of the fact that the lawyers had boycotted the courts that the learned counsel for the petitioners did not make appearance in the case. 4. A litigant has only to be given an opportunity of being heard either in person or through counsel and if such an opportunity having been given is not availed by a litigant and the case is decided on merits the only remedy available to such a litigant is to challenge the order passed by the court by filing an appeal unless the case is one which can be asked to be reviewed. As noted above, the case was decided on merits. No case has been made out for recalling the order dated 16-9-1991. 5. Consequently, we dismiss this application. It stands disposed of accordingly.Application dismissed. *******