ORDER 1. Regard being had to similitude of the controversy involved in W.P. No. 5498/08 (S) (District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Shrivastava and others) and W.P. No. 5497/06 (s) (District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Krishna Raghuwanwi and Others), they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the case of W.P. No. 5498/08 (S) have been dealt with. 2. The petitioner before this Court District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vidisha has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in Second Appeal No. 411/04 and also order dated 15-9-06 passed in Review No. 13/06. 3. The contention of the petitioner-bank is that a dispute under section 55(2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as "the Act, 1960") was raised before the Deputy Registrar. Bhopal by respondent No.1 claiming promotion and consequential seniority and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Bhopal by an order dated 20th September 2001 and the respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Registrar preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar and the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed vide order dated 10.6.2004. The petitioner has further stated that the Second Appeal was preferred before the M.P. State Government Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Joint Registrar and the Tribunal has not heard the matter on merits and vide order dated 10.1.2006 dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. The petitioner bank has thereafter preferred a review petition before the Tribunal i.e. Review No. l3/06 and the same has also been dismissed on l5.9.2006. . 4. The contention of petitioner bank is that the order passed by the Joint Registrar dated 10.6.2004 is bad in law and the Joint Registrar does not have an authority to direct promotion of the respondent No. I, as the respondent No.1 was not entitled for promotion. It has also been stated by the Bank that the respondent No.1 has no right of promotion without passing of typing examination and, therefore, such an order could not have been passed by the Joint Registrar directing promotion of the respondent no. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also been stated by the Bank that the respondent No.1 has no right of promotion without passing of typing examination and, therefore, such an order could not have been passed by the Joint Registrar directing promotion of the respondent no. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner bank has also stated that the appeal could not have been dismissed by the Tribunal as the order passed by the Joint Registrar was not communicated to the Bank and it was communicated to the bank only on 16.2.2004 and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay should have been allowed by the M.P. State Government Tribunal, for quashing of the order passed by the Joint Registrar. The learned counsel for the petitioner bank has prayed for quashing of order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Tribunal as well as order passed on 15.9.06 in review. 5. A reply has been filed by respondent No.1 and it has been stated that the respondent No.1 was appointed initially on the post of Clerk on 19.8.89 and thereafter his services were put to an end. The order of termination was set-aside by this Court vide order dated 23.8.1995 passed in W.P.No.657/93. The respondent No.1 by virtue of the order passed by this Court was taken back in service. As his termination order was cancelled and proper seniority was not granted to him by the petitioner/bank, the respondent No.1 again preferred a Writ Petition before this Court and the same was registered as 'N.P.No.826/97 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 23.6. I 997 as there was an alternative remedy of preferring a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act, 1960. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also stated before this Court that all those persons who were appointed after the respondents and who are admittedly junior to the respondents were promoted to the post of Supervisor and Assistant Accountant and therefore, a prayer was made for grant of promotion at par from the date the juniors were permitted by raising a dispute before Deputy Registrar. The application preferred by respondent No. I was dismissed by Deputy Registrar and the respondents being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Registrar preferred an appeal before Joint Registrar and Joint Registrar has allowed the appeal preferred by respondents and has directed the petitioner -bank to grant the pay scale/ promotion with the juniors. He has further stated that the order passed by the Joint Registrar was brought to the notice of the bank on 30.6.04 and the petitioner-bank has also complied the order on 22.7.04. The contention of the respondents is that the bank after complying the order has preferred a Second Appeal in the matter and the same has been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by limitation. The learned counsel for respondents has also brought to the notice of this Court that an incorrect statement has been made by the petitioner-bank that the petitioner-bank has received a copy of the order on 16.9.04 whereas the copies along with the document was submitted by the bank on 30.6.2004 and the bank has complied the order dated 22.7.2004 hence, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was appointed on 19.8.89 in the service of petitioner-bank and the services were put to an end by the petitioner-bank. Being aggrieved with the order of termination dated 3 1 .3.93., a Writ Petition was preferred by respondent No.1 i.e. W.P. No.657/93 and the same was decided by this Court on 23.8.95. The order of termination was set-aside. The respondent No. I was re-instated back in service and as the juniors to the respondents were promited to the next higher post, a dispute was preferred under Section 55 (2) of the Act, 1960 claiming seniority and promotion at par, with juniors. The same was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar and an appeal was preferred before the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar. Cooperative Societies, vide order dated 10.6.04 has allowed the appeal and a copy of the order passed by the joint Registrar was submitted by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner-bank on 30.6.04. The same was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar and an appeal was preferred before the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar. Cooperative Societies, vide order dated 10.6.04 has allowed the appeal and a copy of the order passed by the joint Registrar was submitted by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner-bank on 30.6.04. The petitioner bank after receiving The certified copy of the order passed by the Joint Registrar dated 30.6.04 has complied with the order passed by the Joint Registrar by passing an order dated 22.7.04 and thereafter the appeal was preferred before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal and the petitioner-bank by filing an application for extention of period of limitation has stated that they have received a copy only on 16.9.04. It is really strange that an incorrect statement was made by an institution while preferring an appeal before M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. The facts remain that the petitioner-bank has received a certified copy of the order which was served by respondent employee on 30.6.04 and the judgment delivered by the Joint Registrar was complied by the bank vide order dated 22.7.04. Thus, the order passed by the Joint Registrar was well within the knowledge of the petitioner-bank. The Tribunal taking into account the aforesaid fact has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal in S.A. No.411/04 has observed as under: "The impugned order was passed by Jt. Registrar-Coop Societies Bhopal on 15/08/04. According to the counsel of the applicant, the Appellant came to know about the impugned order dt.5/8/04 on 16/9/ 04. Therefore, the appeal was filed on 28/9/04. It is submitted that the appeal is within limitaion from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. Assailing the submission of the appellant, the counsel for respondent has submitted two documents along with his application u/s 151 of Civil Procedure Code. These documents include an application to the Manager of the Appellant Bank on 6/6/04, consequent to the order, 5/ 8/04 passed by Jt. Registrar, C.S. Bhopal, claiming his promotion and consequential dues. The applicant Bank vide order dt. 12/8/04 in compliance of the impugned order dt. 5/8/04, sanctioned the pay scale to the Respondent No.1. In view of those documents, it is submitted that the Appellant Bank had knowledge about the impugned order dt. 5/8/04 on 6/8/04 itself. Registrar, C.S. Bhopal, claiming his promotion and consequential dues. The applicant Bank vide order dt. 12/8/04 in compliance of the impugned order dt. 5/8/04, sanctioned the pay scale to the Respondent No.1. In view of those documents, it is submitted that the Appellant Bank had knowledge about the impugned order dt. 5/8/04 on 6/8/04 itself. In this background the contention of the Appellant Bank regarding the knowledge of the impugned order on 16/9/04 is patently wrong. In view of the documents filed by the Respondent No.1 which are not disputed on behalf of the Appellant Bank, there does not remain any controversy to the effect that the Appellant Bank did know about the impugned order dt. 5/8/04 on 6/8/04 itself. Thus, the stand of the Appellant Bank that they came to know about the impugned order dt.5/8/04 on 16/9/04 is apparently baseless rather mis-statement of the facts. In Shri Ramji Sharma Vs. M.P. State Coop. Tribunal and others, 2008 RN 88 (HC) it has been held that the limitation for filing, the dispute u/s 55 (2) of the Act is 30 days from the date of the order. Date of communication is immaterial. In view of the law laid down by Hon. High Court and facts on record the appeal is apparently time barred, hence, dismissed with cost." The review petition was also preferred for review of the order passed by the Tribunal and the same was registered as Review Petition No. 13/06 and the review petition has also been dimissed by passing the following order: "4. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope in review is limited. A litigant cannot seek review of judgement merely for purpose of re-hearing and fresh decision of the case. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills 2004 (II) M.P.LJ. 492. 5. Bearing the principles laid down in the aforesaid citation, the question for consideration is whether the confusion in respect of the order pertaining to the respondent can be treated mistake or error apparent on the face of record." 8. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills 2004 (II) M.P.LJ. 492. 5. Bearing the principles laid down in the aforesaid citation, the question for consideration is whether the confusion in respect of the order pertaining to the respondent can be treated mistake or error apparent on the face of record." 8. This Court has carefully gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal, the order passed by the Joint Registrar and the review order passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal and it is a case where an employee was fighting for his seniority and promotion and consequent to his reinstatement by virtue of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.567/93 preferred by respondent No. I (Mukesh Shrivastava Vs. Vidisha Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. and two others). The respondents who were initially terminated were placed back in service by this Court and were fighting for consequential seniority in the matter. The Joint Registrar, has passed an order granting consequential seniority and promotion and the petitioner-bank has also complied with the order passed by the Joint Registrar. The petitioner-bank was certainly having knowledge of the order dated 10.6.04 as the same was received by the bank on 30.6.04 and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-bank by passing an order dated 10.1.06. The Tribunal was also justified in dismissing the review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Resultantly, no interference is made out in the Writ Petition, hence it is hereby dismissed.