JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the claimant-petitioner for review of order dated 16.9.2008, by which Misc. Appeal No. 457 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was allowed and she was directed to be paid Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) as claimed by her. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the accident took place in the year 1997, whereafter in the year 1998, the petitioner filed a claim case for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) which was dismissed by the Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna, vide its order dated 23.4.2004. Against the said order of rejection of her claim, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 457 of 2004 and after hearing the parties, a Bench of this Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allowed her claim in full directing payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) to her as per her claim, by the Union of India (Railways) within one month from the date of passing of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be realised from the respondents. 4. Now the petitioner seeks review of the said order claiming that she was entitled to Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakhs) as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon V/s. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 2001 SC 133. 5. From the facts of the case it is quite apparent that the claim case was decided in the year 2004, whereas Misc. Appeal was decided in the year 2008, but neither the said ruling was relied upon by the petitioner either before the Tribunal or before this Court, nor she ever claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakhs) and her claim through out remained Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) only which was allowed in full by a Bench of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 457 of 2004, by the order sought to be reviewed. 6. In the said circumstances, the petitioner now can not legally raise any claim, as the decision mentioned above was itself reported as far back as in the year 2001 and that too fixing only the maximum amount. Hence this Court does not find any reason to review the said order of this Court passed in Misc. Appeal No. 457 of 2004. 7. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.