1. Petitioner was working as assistant manager in Food Corporation of India (‘FCI') since May 1980 and till 2003 he was functioning as assistant manager. He filed WP(C) No. 1992/2004 seeking regularisation of his service. This court allowed the writ petition and passed the following order: “The Corporation shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from today regularising the services of the writ petitioner with effect from the date of his deployment and to give him the benefit of the scale of pay meant for the Assistant Manager with effect from the date of such deployment. The amount payable shall be computed accordingly and paid to the writ petitioner who has already been superannuated from service.” 2. Respondent did not give effect to the directions in the writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by Md. Safiullah, the petitioner. 3. Respondent filed review petition 2/2008 seeking review of the order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 1992/2004 on the following ground. (i) Employees’ Union filed a Writ Petition [Civil Rule 1395/1988] seeking regularisation of services of - and grant of other benefits to — its members. It was the contention that employees working on ad hoc basis had to be regularised from the date of their deployment (on ad hoc basis). This court directed that all eligible persons had to be regularised within two months. 4. It is contented that there was prayer for regularisation from the date of their initial deployment and that period should be treated as continuity in service for the purpose of pension. 5. It is further contended that this petitioner also filed another petition [Civil Rule 711/1990] seeking regularisation of his service from the date of his initial deployment. In this case respondent was directed regularisation but no direction was given as to from which elate regularisation would take effect. 6. Petitioner later filed WP(C) No. 1992/2004 seeking reckoning the period of his earlier deployment in service on casual/ad hoc basis. This court granted relief as stated (supra) above. 7. It is the contention of the respondent that the relief of regularisation from the date of deployment was not granted. This petitioner in the writ petition also sought similar relief, which was not granted. The second Writ Petition [WP(C) No. 1992/2004] was misleading of relief which was not granted earlier. This court granted relief as stated (supra) above. 7. It is the contention of the respondent that the relief of regularisation from the date of deployment was not granted. This petitioner in the writ petition also sought similar relief, which was not granted. The second Writ Petition [WP(C) No. 1992/2004] was misleading of relief which was not granted earlier. Therefore, it was not permissible for the petitioner to file a writ petition when relief was already rejected. 8. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Thaneswar Kalita in Civil Appeal No. 4029-30/1995 held that the continuity in service for the purpose of pension should be determined from the date of regularisation, not from the date of deployment. 9. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court present review petition is filed for review of the order of this court in Civil Rule No. 1992/2004. It maybe, the decision of the Supreme Court is binding under article 141 of the Constitution of India on all courts, but the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered much earlier than the decision of this court in Civil Rule No. 1992/2004. However in lis between petitioner and respondent in Civil Rule No. 1992/2004 there has been determination of rights of the parties, and it has been directed that regularisation had to be made from the date of his deployment. The said decision had became final to and binding on respondent, since the FCI has not challenged the said order. It is belatedly after almost two years that the review petition is filed contending that the said decision is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. I see no point in the argument because when the case in Civil Rule No. 1992/2004 was argued respondent ought to have taken all the pleas, including WP(C) No. 711/1990 (filed by-this petitioner). It appears that none of these grounds was urged. It obviously reveals that the respondent did not argue the case properly in Civil Rule No. 1992/ 2004 and did riot plead the aforesaid defences available. When lis has become final to - and binding oh - respondent and rights of the parties’ have- been decided in Civil Rule No. 1992/2004 it is too late in the day "for the respondent to challenge and also to seek review (of) the order. When lis has become final to - and binding oh - respondent and rights of the parties’ have- been decided in Civil Rule No. 1992/2004 it is too late in the day "for the respondent to challenge and also to seek review (of) the order. In that view of the matter the writ petition is allowed and the review petition is dismissed.