JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has moved the present review petition to review the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 265/1999, whereby the appeal filed by RSRTC was allowed. There is a delay of 23 days in filing the review petition, therefore, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone-the delay. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after decreeing the plaintiff-suit by the trial Court, the execution proceedings were filed in the trial Court and the matter went up to the Supreme Court. He was not having the copy of the order of the Apex Court when he argued the Second Appeal, therefore, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 13.10.1998 disposed of all the civil appeals filed by the RSRTC by observing that the even if the appeals (Second Appeal) of the corporation succeeds, the respondents (plaintiff) shall not be asked to refund the back-wages received by them pursuant to this order. The Hon'ble Apex Court also directed that respondent shall be paid 33% of the arrears of salary instead of 40%. He, therefore, submits that order dated 7.9.2006 may be reviewed and order be passed in terms of direction of the Apex Court. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the explanation for condoning the delay in filing the review petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has explained the same in para 2 of the application, which reads as under: "That the counsel for the humble plaintiff-petitioner informed the humble plaintiff appellant through letters as well as telegram with respect to the aforesaid decision, but since the plaintiff-petitioner is suffering from Paralysis and could not move alone and his wife has also died, in absence of any responsible person the plaintiff petitioner was unable to come to Jaipur within time and it could be possible for the plaintiff-petitioner to contact with his Advocate only on 27.10.2006 and to instruct to move review petition before this Hon'ble Court. That apart, even the plaintiff-appellant is unable to put his signature and can only put the thumb impression on account of the fact that his and is not in working condition due to paralysis." 4. That apart, even the plaintiff-appellant is unable to put his signature and can only put the thumb impression on account of the fact that his and is not in working condition due to paralysis." 4. The petitioner in support of above contention has not placed on record a copy of letter or telegram or medical certificate. The above explanation does not constitute the sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the review petition. 5. Apart-from above, I have also examined the review petition on merits and within the scope of review petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order way back on 13.10.1998 in presence of the present petitioner but the said order was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of the second appeal. However, I examined the order of this Court in the light of order passed by the Apex Court also. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.10.1998 reads as under: "Leave granted. This group comprising of eight civil appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the orders passed by the executing Court rejecting the objections filed by the appellants. Respondents in these appeals were employees of the State Road Transport Corporation. Subsequently their services were terminated. The civil Court held that the termination of services of the respondents was illegal and void being in violation of principle of natural justice. The appellants preferred appeals against the decree of the trial Court. While the appeals were pending the respondents filed execution petitions before the Executing Court. The appellants filed objection under Section 151 against the maintainability of the proceedings. The said objection was rejected against which the appellants filed revisions which were also dismissed. When these appeals were taken up, learned counsel for the respondents referred to a decision of this Court in C.A. No. ..../1994 SLP(C) No. 17038/1994, etc etc. (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Narain Singh etc.etc.) . In the said case in similar situation this Court passed the following order. 1. The respondents, in all the appeals herein, are entitled to be reinstated with effect from the date of the decree in their favour. Those who have not been reinstated despite decrees in their favour are entitled to wages from the date of decree onwards. We direct the Corporation to pay salary/wages to the respondents from the date of decree onwards. The respondents, in all the appeals herein, are entitled to be reinstated with effect from the date of the decree in their favour. Those who have not been reinstated despite decrees in their favour are entitled to wages from the date of decree onwards. We direct the Corporation to pay salary/wages to the respondents from the date of decree onwards. It shall be done within four months from today. Needless to say that all these respondents who have reached the age of superannuation meanwhile shall be entitled to the wages till the dates of their superannuation. 2. So far as back-wagers prior to the date of decree are concerned, we direct that the respondents shall be entitled to 40% of the back wages. The back wages shall be calculated and paid to the respondents within four months from today We make it clear that even if the appeals filed by the Corporation succeed, the respondents shall not be asked to refund the back wages received by them pursuant to this order. In all other respects the appellate order shall be binding on the parties subject to other remedies available to them under law; 3. In case the Corporation has already paid full back wages to any of the respondents the same shall not be recovered from them even if the amount so paid is more that 40% as directed by us. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid directions issued in the aforesaid case deserves to be passed in the present cases also. We accordingly adopt the aforesaid directions with this modification that respondent shall be paid 33% of the arrears of salary instead of 40%. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs." 6. The operative portion of order dated 7.9.2006 passed by this Court also reads as under: "In the result, the appeal, filed by defendants appellants, is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed. It is made clear that the plaintiff-respondent shall not be allowed to continue in service any further, but in case any wages or regular salary has been paid to him, the same shall not be recovered from him. It is made clear that the plaintiff-respondent shall not be allowed to continue in service any further, but in case any wages or regular salary has been paid to him, the same shall not be recovered from him. It will be open for the plaintiff respondent to approach the Labour Court for his grievances in accordance with the provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs." 7. The aforesaid two orders make it clear that this Court has already passed an order that in case any wages or regular salary has been paid to Kailash Chand Sharma, the same shall not be recovered from him. Therefore, this order is in consonance with the order passed by the Apex Court itself. Even after dismissal of the suit of respondent Kailash Chand Sharma, the aforesaid order for riot recovering the amount from him has been passed. 8. In view of above, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record, so as to review the order dated 7.9.2006. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also.Review Petition Dismissed. *******