JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, an employee of the respondent Bank, has preferred this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 1st of December 2000 (Annex.5), and order dated 24th of August 2001 (Annex.6) respectively. He has further prayed for revising the earlier pay fixation order issued on 18th of April 2000, and the consequential relief of allowing him pay scale in accordance with the said order. 2. Scorning the checkered history of the case for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, suffice it to state that the petitioner preferred a writ petition earlier before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1863/1980. The said petition was decided by the coordinate Bench on 11th December 1991 and following directions were issued: "Keeping in view these facts, the award of the learned labour Judge, Bikaner dated 2.6.1980 deserves to be modified to this extent that the petitioner will be treated to have been fixed at Rs. 115/- in the grade of Rs. 110-376 with effect from 26.6.1973 and his next date of increment will fall due on 26.6.1974. Consequently, he will be entitled to all arrears due to him on account these fixational and incremental benefits. The arrears be paid to him within a period of six months from today." 3. In adherence of the directions issued by this Court, requisite pay fixation order was issued by the respondent Bank on 16th of May 1992, whereby the petitioner was allowed the pay scale of 110-376 at Rs. 115 w.e.f. 26th of June 1973. Subsequent to that, yet another office order was issued by the Bank on 18th April 2000, whereby fixation of basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 115 was preponed and it was allowed from 01.01.1973. In the same order, the fixation benefits were also allowed to the petitioner accordingly. It appears that the Bank has realised its mistake, and taking into account the verdict of this Court date 11.12.1991 a corrigendum was issued on 1st of December 2000, whereby the order of 18.04.2000 was rescinded. Feeling aggrieved from this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 1965 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. The said revision was dismissed on 24th of August 2001. After dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforementioned prayers. 4. Feeling aggrieved from this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 1965 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. The said revision was dismissed on 24th of August 2001. After dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforementioned prayers. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the order dated 11.12.1991 was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on a petition laid by the petitioner, wherein while appreciating the grievances of the petitioner, this Court has held that petitioner is liable to be fixed at the basic pay of Rs. 115 in the grade of 110-376 w.e.f. 26th of June 1973. While relying on the said verdict, the pay fixation was ordered by the respondent Bank vide Annex.3. Subsequently, due to some bonafide mistake the order was modified vide Annex.4. When the mistake was realized, the Bank has issued the corrigendum by way of rescinding the order dated 18th April 2000, and restoring the order which was passed earlier on 26th May 1992 (Annex.3). The revisional authority has also on examining the matter has found that there is no infirmity in the order dated 1st of December 2010 as the same is in consonance and in conformity with the verdict of the coordinate Bench of this Court rendered on a petition preferred by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.12.1991 has attained finality inasmuch as the petitioner has not made any endeavour to seek its review or to challenge it before the appellate authority. Thus, the impugned order dated 1st of December 2000 which was passed by the Bank in adherence of the decision of this Court cannot be faulted and the order passed by the revisional authority also cannot be categorized as infirm in the given circumstances. 6. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, the order passed by the respondent Bank and the revisional authority are just orders and there is no error in both these orders much less an error apparent on the face of record warranting intereference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 7. 6. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, the order passed by the respondent Bank and the revisional authority are just orders and there is no error in both these orders much less an error apparent on the face of record warranting intereference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 7. Resultantly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Costs are made easy. *******