Judgment :- This review application has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to review the order, dated 16. 2009, made in W.P.No.2848 of 2007 and to dismiss the writ petition. 2. It has been stated that the writ petitioner was working as a Forest Ranger, Afforestation Range, Tiruvannamalai. During the year, 1997-1998, he had executed the work of raising plantations over an area of 290 hectares in Periyakulam water shed area, under the Tamilnadu Afforestation Project. As per the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Social Forestry), Chennai, in Reference No.S2/15660/98, dated 3. 1999, monitoring of the works was taken up by Mr.Amit Asthana, Deputy Conservator of Forests, from 1. 1999 to 1. 1999. In the inspection report, dated 21. 1999, submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Chief Conservator of Forests, (Social Forestry), the details of short fall in planting seedlings had been highlighted. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Social Forestry), Chennai, in his reference, dated 21. 1999, had instructed the Divisional Forest Officer, Afforestation Division, Tiruvannamalai, to take necessary action to recover the loss caused to the Government. 3. The writ petitioner, who has now retired from service, had been given an opportunity to explain the reasons for the short fall in the planting of the seedlings. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory a charge sheet had been issued, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, calling for an explanation from the writ petitioner. The petitioner had been asked to explain as to how the inadmissible expenditure of Rs.63,519/- had been incurred. The petitioner had received the charge sheet, dated 15. 1999, on 25. 1999. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 28. 1999. The explanation submitted by the petitioner had been examined and final orders had been passed by the Conservator of Forests, Vellore Circle, by his proceedings, dated 19. 1999, ordering the recovery of the amount of Rs.63,519/-from the petitioner, in one instalment, as he was due to retire from service, on 22. 2000. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, issued an order, dated 35. 2000, on the appeal, dated 111. 1999, preferred by the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, had cancelled the order passed by the Conservator of Forests, Vellore Circle, on 19. 2000. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, issued an order, dated 35. 2000, on the appeal, dated 111. 1999, preferred by the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, had cancelled the order passed by the Conservator of Forests, Vellore Circle, on 19. 1999, and had ordered for the re-issue of a fresh charge sheet, after getting the sanction of the Government, as per pension rule No.9(2) (c). When the appeal filed by the petitioner was under consideration by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, the petitioner, who was a Ranger at that time had produced a declaration in a stamp paper, stating that he agrees for the recovery of Rs.1,55,228/-, being the expenditure incurred in the field operations, from his gratuity. Thereafter, he had retired from service, on 22. 2000, as ordered by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, in his order, dated 12. 2000. After his retirement from service the amount due from the petitioner was to be recovered from his pensionary benefits and the pension proposals were sent to the Accountant General, Chennai. The Accountant General, Chennai, in his proceedings, dated 8. 2000, had sanctioned the pension and the gratuity of the petitioner, amounting to Rs.1,51,458/-. However, it was recovered from the gratuity and the balance amount had been paid to the petitioner, on 210. 2000. 5. After his retirement from service the petitioner had filed a petition before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A.No.401 of 2001. He had also obtained an order of interim stay against the proceedings of the Conservator of Forests, Vellore and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai. Thereafter, a draft charge sheet, under the relevant pension rules, had been prepared and submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, and a copy of the same had been sent to the State Government. The State Government had issued certain directions, on 212. 2004. Based on the undertaking given by the petitioner, on 12. 2000, for the recovery of the amount due from him, from his death cum retirement gratuity, he was allowed to retire from service. The undertaking given by the petitioner is valid, as it would come under the contractual obligations between the employer and his employee. 6. Taking into consideration the various averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court had passed an order, on 16. The undertaking given by the petitioner is valid, as it would come under the contractual obligations between the employer and his employee. 6. Taking into consideration the various averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court had passed an order, on 16. 2009, in W.P.No.2848 of 2007, setting aside the impugned orders of the respondents therein. As the petitioner had already retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 22. 2000, the writ petition had been allowed, as there was no provision of law to enable the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, after he had retired from service, based on the decision, reported in Kunnai Gowder.N Vs. The Coimbatore District, Coop, Milk Producers Union Ltd. ( 2007(5) CTC 491 ). The present review application has been filed against the order passed by this Court, on 16. 2009, made in Writ Petition No.2848 of 2007. 7. Even though various grounds have been raised in the review application, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent had given an undertaking, on 12. 2000, for the recovery of the amount, from his death cum retirement gratuity and as a consequence, the recovery has been made from the death cum retirement gratuity of the respondent before he was allowed to retire. The undertaking given by the individual is valid in law, as it had created a contractual obligation between the respondent and his employer. He can neither resile from it, nor can he dispute the fact that he had given such an undertaking. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had also submitted that the fact, that the respondent had given an undertaking, as stated above, had not been brought to the knowledge of this Court, at the time of the passing of its order, dated 16. 2009. Therefore, the review application is to be allowed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the review application had submitted that the review application is not maintainable, either in law, or on facts. He had submitted that at the time of the passing of the impugned order of the second respondent, in the writ petition, on 35. 2000, the respondent in the review application was not in service, as he had already retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 22. 2000. He had submitted that at the time of the passing of the impugned order of the second respondent, in the writ petition, on 35. 2000, the respondent in the review application was not in service, as he had already retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 22. 2000. Since there is no provision to enable the respondents in the writ petition, who are the petitioners in the present review application, to proceed against the respondent in the review application, after he had retired from service, such recovery effected from his retiral benefits cannot be held to be valid in law. 9. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in N.M.Somasundaram V. The Director General of Police, etc., (1997 Writ L.R. 120), wherein, it had been held as follows: "A reading of Rule 56(a) and (c) together would lead to irresistible conclusion that in order to retain a public servant or a Government servant in service on attaining his age of superannuation, a positive order in writing shall have to be passed by the Government, giving the reasons as to on what grounds, which should be on public grounds, a Government servant is retained in service. No doubt, Rule 56(c) says that a Government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct, should not be required or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement. It further says that he should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is conducted and a final order passed thereon by the Competent Authority. Therefore even though it may not be necessary to permit the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending, to retire from service, in order to retain him in service for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings, a positive order in writing is required to be passed. The public ground for passing the said order is the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. But, what is necessary is that there should be an order passed by the Government not permitting a Government Servant to retire from service. The instruction under Rule 56(c) also does not help the State Government. The instruction only takes away the effect, if any, of the orders passed by the State Government in writing, retaining a Government servant even after attaining the age of superannuation. The instruction under Rule 56(c) also does not help the State Government. The instruction only takes away the effect, if any, of the orders passed by the State Government in writing, retaining a Government servant even after attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, it states that even retention does not help him for obtaining any service benefits and those service benefits will freeze on the date he attains the age of superannuation." 10. In Dr.R.B.Agnihotri V. State of U.P (All.) (2000(3) SLR 114), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Bhagirathi Jena V. Board of Directors O.S.F.C., (1999(82) Fac LR 143), had held that in the absence of any express provision the departmental enquiry could not have been continued after the superannuation of the petitioner. 11. In Kunnai Gowder.N Vs. The Coimbatore District, Co-op, Milk Producers Union Ltd. ( 2007(5) CTC 491 ), it had been held that the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, after the retirement of a person from service, is illegal and without jurisdiction, in the absence of specific enabling provisions, under the relevant statute. 12. In Manoharan,G. V. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (2007(2) CTC 501), this Court had held that the continuance of the enquiry proceedings, after the superannuation of a person, is not valid, in the absence of specific provisions in the relevant statute and in the service regulations applicable to the person concerned. 13. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.745 of 2009, dated 10. 2009, had also held that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued against a person, who had retired from service and recovery cannot be made from his retiral benefits, unless, he had been in continuous service, by invoking the relevant provisions of law applicable to him. 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as a well as the respondent and in view of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the above review application is not maintainable. No new grounds have been made out by the petitioners for this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction, which is limited in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). 15. No new grounds have been made out by the petitioners for this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction, which is limited in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). 15. Even if certain facts had not been brought to the knowledge of this Court, at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, it would not be open to the petitioners herein to seek for a review of the order passed by this Court, on 16. 2009. The petitioners ought to have availed the opportunity of bringing to the knowledge of this Court that the respondent herein had given an undertaking, on 12. 2000, and that the authorities concerned can recover the amount in question from his death cum retirement gratuity, at the earliest instance. Failure to do so cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners to seek for a review of this Courts earlier order, dated 16. 2009. Once it is found that the recovery of certain amounts from the respondent is invalid, the fact that the recovery had already been made cannot be cited as a reason to validate the recovery. In such circumstances, the review application is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.