SUDHIR NARAIN, LAKSHMIBIHARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was in the service of Nagar palika, Jhansi. After the services of Nagar palikas were centralized, he was transferred to various Nagar Palikas. On July 5, 1975 the petitioner retired from service. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he had made several claims with regard to bonus etc. , before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal II, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The tribunal rejected the claims of the petitioner vide its order dated February 10, 1977. One of the cpntentions of the petitioner raised was that the Tribunal made an observation in its order that the petitioner had admitted to have received a sum of Rs. 3480/- representing his six months salary. The petitioner challenged that observation by filing a review petition before the Tribunal. Besides this he also preferred writ Petition No. 7389 of 1980 which was dismissed as premature on the ground that the petitioner had already moved a review application. The Court made the following observations:"the point ultimately raised in this writ petition related to the amount of Rs. 3480/-representing 6 months salary which the petitioner claims has not been paid to him. This very point is the subject matter of a review application filed by the petitioner before the Public Services Tribunal in respect of its decision dated February 12, 1977. Since the review application is still pending, this writ petition is premature. Rejected. " ( 3 ) THE Tribunal rejected the review application of the petitioner for Rs. 3480/- with the following observations:"it cannot be believed that the learned members had made a wrong statement for which they could not possibly have had any motive. The presumption must be that whatever facts are stated by a Court of law within its own knowledge are correct. The allegation is rejected. " ( 4 ) THERE is a presumption that the observations made by the Court or the Tribunal in its order is correct but when the applicant in review petition, makes allegation that he never made statement which was the basis of the order, it has to be examined after considering all the relevant factors viz. , whether admission was made by the applicant or his counsel, whether it was duly recorded or admission was made during course of argument. , whether admission was made by the applicant or his counsel, whether it was duly recorded or admission was made during course of argument. Secondly, it was a matter of record as to whether the petitioner was paid salary for six months in question. This could have been examined by summoning the record from the office concerned as to whether he was paid salary for the period claimed by him. The matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal is directed to decide the question afresh. It may summon the record from the authority concerned to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was paid Rs. 3480/-, the salary for the period claimed by him. ( 6 ) THE petitioner had also made claim in respect of bonus on Dearness Allowance, which has been rejected by the Tribunal. We do not find that there is any error of law in the order of the Tribunal in respect of bonus. ( 7 ) IN respect of other claims made by the petitioner, we do not find that there is any error either of law or of facts in the order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been observed above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal on August 26, 1981, in so far as the claim of the petitioner for the sum of Rs. 3480/- is concerned, is hereby quashed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the review application afresh on the question of payment of Rs. 3480/- within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. .