ORDER 1. Seeking review/clarification/modification of an order passed by this Court on 22.3.2010, in Writ Petition No.1676/2003, this application has been filed for review/recall. 2. By a consolidated order passed on 22.3.2010, not only W.P. No.1676/2002 but also in various other cases more than 10, all the writ petitions were disposed of by common order. 3. The employees who had filed the writ petition, so also the present applicants, were working in the establishment of MP State Warehousing Corporation and a dispute had risen after their retirement in the matter of making payment of pension and post retiral benefits to them. It was found on due examination of the matter in detail that an agreement has been entered into between the management of the Warehousing Corporation and the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘LIC’) and certain benefit of payment of pension accrued to the employees by virtue of the said agreement on remittance made by the employer with LIC. 4. Be it as it may be, the writ petitions were disposed of and it was argued that the employer shall issue Pension Payment orders (hereinafter referred to as ‘PPO’) and based on the same, LIC shall take action in the matter. However, as far as the present three applicants, who are petitioners in W.P. No.1676/2003 are concerned, their grievance now seems to be that inspite of the order passed, the employer namely MP Warehousing Corporation is not issuing PPO’s and LIC is also not accepting their claim for payment of pension. They say that now necessary directions be issued to Warehousing Corporation to issue PPOs to these applicants and LIC be directed to make payment. 5. However, LIC has filed a detailed reply and they point out that in respect of the present applicants no annuity was purchased by their employer, and based on an interim order passed on 27.1.2004 in the original writ petition, they were granted some benefit. It is stated that a list of 95 employees vide Document No.2 was forwarded by the employer to LIC and in this list, name of the present applicants appear at Serial No.29, 37 and 67 respectively, and it is stated that for these employees no annuity was purchased, no PPOs were issued by the Corporation or the trustees to the LIC. Accordingly, it is stated that in the case of the said 95 employees, as per Document No.2, and the present three applicants, in the absence of purchase of annuity, no pension or PPO can be granted to them. 6. The applicants deny this contention and Shri Akash Choudhary invite my attention to document – Annexure A/2 dated 14.12.1999 to say that in the matter of one of employee Kailash Chandra Saboo, his name was included in the list of persons entitled for pension and documents were forwarded for issuance of PPO. Accordingly, the applicants now deny the assertion made by Shri R.P. Agrawal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the rival contentions, it is clear that in the consolidated order passed by this Court on 22.3.2010, the rights and liabilities of the parties in the matter of payment of pension has been determined. However, if in the case of any individual employee, there is any dispute with regard to payment of annuity and the consequential issuance of PPO, this dispute has to be resolved independently after conducting an inquiry into the matter. The said exercise cannot be undertaken in a review petition. What was decided on 22.3.2010 is a question of law and the right of the parties with regard to their entitlement was also decided and the individual cases with regard to payment of pension, annuity etc were not dwelt into. 8. That being so, now in this review application, further direction based on the dispute, factual in nature, which has now cropped up cannot be adjudicated. For this an independent exercise has to be undertaken and if the applicants are aggrieved by non-payment of pension to them, or issuance of PPO inspite of legal principle determined in the earlier order passed on 22.3.2010, then the applicants should file a separate petition based on the rights accruing to them by virtue of the earlier order passed on 22.3.2010, claim benefit and seek a mandamus for issuance of PPO and after examining the claim in the light of the objections, if any, that may be filed by the respondents, the matter has to be adjudicated and a decision taken. 9. In that view of the matter, for the present it is not appropriate to enter into this area of inquiry in a review application. 9. In that view of the matter, for the present it is not appropriate to enter into this area of inquiry in a review application. Instead, interest of justice would be met in case applicants are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law either by filing a separate petition, claiming the benefit as is claimed by them in the review application, or seek benefit afresh in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, for the present finding no case made out for review, this application is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to seek indulgence into the matter afresh in accordance with law.