JUDGMENT : This matter has come up for orders on application filed by petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for taking documents on record, along-with application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing thereof. 2. For stated reasons, both applications are allowed. Delay in filing application under Section 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, is condoned. Documents, filed in terms of order of this court dated 24.03.2015, are taken on record. Both applications accordingly stand disposed of. 3. Review petitioner filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.25195/2008 before the Supreme Court against Division Bench judgment of this court dated 05.05.2008. In the Supreme Court, it was submitted on its behalf that this court in its judgment has not noticed the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, therefore, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 24.10.2008 while dismissing the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn, gave liberty to petitioner to file review petition. Hence this review petition. 4. Review petition is taken up for hearing. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record. 6. This review petition has been filed seeking review of judgment of this court dated 05.05.2008. A Division Bench of this court, vide aforesaid judgment, upheld judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.05.2004 accepting writ petition filed by respondent, whereby petitioner herein was directed to pay to respondent herein the amount of gratuity for services rendered by him. 7. Facts of case are that respondent was appointed with the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 14.07.1993 but later on he resigned from service with effect from 30.12.1998. When petitioner refused to pay him gratuity for the service of more than five years rendered by him, he approached this court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3093/2000. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 12.05.2004, allowed writ petition relying on Rule 3(1) of the RSEB Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. The Division Bench concurred with the view taken by learned Single Judge and in doing so, rejected argument of petitioner that pension and gratuity rules of the State Government would be applicable to the respondent. This argument was rejected on the premise that general rules framed by the State Government would not apply in view of Explanation II of Rule 3 of the RSEB Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. This argument was rejected on the premise that general rules framed by the State Government would not apply in view of Explanation II of Rule 3 of the RSEB Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. The Division Bench held that Rule 3 of the RSEB Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 could not be read in isolation of Explanation II thereto. Argument of the petitioner that the Rules of 1972 will apply to all the employees of the Board whether on regular pay scale or not, but will not apply to those employees who though are working in the Board but are eligible for Pension and Gratuity as per Pension and Gratuity Rules of the State Government and will not also apply to the employees covered under Jodhpur Provident Fund Scheme, was also noted but the Division Bench rejected the aforesaid argument holding that when Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 specifically deals with the situation arising out of resignation of an employee of the Board who has rendered more than five years of service, entitling him to gratuity, recourse cannot be had to general rules framed by the State Government in the face of specific rules governing conditions of service of the employees of the Board. 8. Dr. Saugath Roy, learned counsel appearing for review petitioner, has reiterated the same argument and submitted that as per the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, in particular Rule 25(1) thereof, resignation entails forfeiture of past services and therefore, respondent is not entitled to gratuity. 9. It is argued that this court, while deciding the special appeal, did not take note of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and particularly Rule 25 thereof, therefore, the judgment deserves to be reviewed and matter be reheard. 10. 9. It is argued that this court, while deciding the special appeal, did not take note of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and particularly Rule 25 thereof, therefore, the judgment deserves to be reviewed and matter be reheard. 10. We are not inclined to uphold the contention of learned counsel for review petitioner that Pension and Gratuity Rules of the State Government were not taken note of by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 05.05.2008, although it is true that nomenclature of the Rules, namely, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, as such was not mentioned in judgment but it was categorically noted in para 3 of the judgment while taking note of the argument of the petitioner that the Rules of 1972 "...will not apply to those employees who though are working in the Board but are eligible for pension and Gratuity as per pension and the Gratuity Rules of the State Government..." These Rules are none other than the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The premise on which the review petition has been filed, cannot be a reason to find any error apparent on the face of record of the judgment. No case for review is made out. Review petition is accordingly dismissed.