JUDGMENT & ORDER : RR PRASAD, J. By way of this Review Petition, that part of the judgment and order dated 02.6.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 468 of 2011 is being sought to be reviewed whereby all consequential monetary benefits including retiral benefits has been ordered to be paid with effect from 30.4.2007 (from the date of acquittal) instead of 21.8.2002 when the petitioner had been dismissed from service. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had into service as Constable Driver in the Manipur Police in the year, 1973. In course of time the petitioner along with one S. Birachandra Singh, constable was arrested on 4.4.1997 by the army personnel of 12th Sikh Light Infantry, Nungba when they were found in possession of ‘ganja’ (Marijuana) while they were going from Imphal to Jiribam. On the said allegation, a case was registered as NBS PS case No.4(4) 97 NBS-PS u/s 20(b)(i)/29/60(3) ND & PS Act. On account of the involvement of the petitioner and other person named above in the criminal case, they were suspended from service on 20.4.1997 and were put on a departmental proceeding. The petitioner and other person, on being found guilty for the charges, was dismissed from service on 21.8.2002. However, subsequently the petitioner and other person, who had been put on trial in connection with the aforesaid criminal case, were acquitted from the charges on 30.4.2007. After their acquittal, the petitioner and other submitted a representation before the Director General of Police and also to I.G. of Police on 15.11.2007 and 11.12.2007 respectively. Much thereafter the petitioner received a communication from the office of Inspector General of Police (L/O-I) Manipur to the effect that no representation has been received and thereby the petitioner was directed to submit his representation to Dy.I.G. of Police. As per the direction, the petitioner submitted representation on 17.12.2007 before the Dy.I.G. of Police (Range-I) who did not consider it fit to pass any order as he himself had passed the order of dismissal. Accordingly, when the petitioner was directed to file appeal before the I.G. of Police (L/O-I), Manipur, he preferred an appeal on 8.1.2008 praying therein to set aside the order of dismissal dated 21.8.2002 and consequently to reinstate him to his former post. But, that appeal was never disposed of. In that event, writ application was filed before this Court. 3. Accordingly, when the petitioner was directed to file appeal before the I.G. of Police (L/O-I), Manipur, he preferred an appeal on 8.1.2008 praying therein to set aside the order of dismissal dated 21.8.2002 and consequently to reinstate him to his former post. But, that appeal was never disposed of. In that event, writ application was filed before this Court. 3. This Court, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, did find that the departmental proceeding and the criminal case were based on identical sets of facts. The criminal Court, after examining 6(six) witnesses did come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the petitioner and one other person named above. However, in the departmental proceeding 2 (two) witnesses were examined but they were not on the point of seizure of the contraband ‘ganja’ and thereby this Court did record that it would be unfair and unjust to uphold finding rendered by the enquiry officer which is based only on two witnesses who were not the witnesses to the seizure and accordingly quashed the order of dismissal and passed consequential order in the following terms: “Since the petitioner, S. Paka Singh, has already attained the age of superannuation, the respondents are directed to reinstate him formally and issue an order terminating him from service and thereafter, he shall be given all consequential monetary benefits with effect from 30.4.2007, pension and retiral benefits in accordance with law within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Now, by way of this Review Application that part of the is being sought to be reviewed/modified where the Court had observed that the petitioner shall be given all consequential benefits including pension and retiral benefits w.e.f. 30.4.2007 (date of acquittal) on the ground that once the Court, after going into the merit of the case, did find that order of dismissal is bad, all consequential benefits should have been ordered to be given w.e.f. 21.8.2002 when the petitioner had been dismissed. Thereby, prayer has been made to substitute the date 21.8.2002 in place of the date 30.4.2007 appearing in the impugned order. 5. Mr. A.Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to sub-rule (3) of rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules, submits that if a Govt. Thereby, prayer has been made to substitute the date 21.8.2002 in place of the date 30.4.2007 appearing in the impugned order. 5. Mr. A.Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to sub-rule (3) of rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules, submits that if a Govt. servant is dismissed/removed from service and that order of dismissal or removal is set aside by the court on merit of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal and the order of dismissal being set aside, shall be treated as on duty and Government servant would be entitled to have full pay and allowances for the said period. The learned counsel, by referring to the order passed in the writ petition setting aside the order of dismissal, submits that the court having gone into the merit of the case was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and thereby the court in terms of the aforesaid sub-rule (3) of rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules should have passed consequential order of payment of all monetary benefits with effect from the date of dismissal i.e. 21.8.2002 instead of 30.4.2007 on which date the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal trial and thereby in all probability it does appear that said date, 30.4.2007 has inadvertently been recorded in the operative part of the order which needs to be modified by putting the date as 21.8.2002. In this regard, it was further submitted that the Court, in exercise of the power of review if is satisfied that its directions have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or any legal right of the petitioner can review its order because no one can be forced to suffer because of the mistake of the court which proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Lily Thomas & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (2006) 6 SCC 224. The learned counsel has also referred to a decision rendered in the case of Krishnaswamy S. PD. U Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors : (2006) 3 SCC 286 wherein it has been held as follows: “The maxim of equity namely actus curiae neminem gravabit-court shall prejudice no man, if founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. U Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors : (2006) 3 SCC 286 wherein it has been held as follows: “The maxim of equity namely actus curiae neminem gravabit-court shall prejudice no man, if founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. An unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any party and alone could be rectified.” 6. By referring to those decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances and also the provisions of Fundamental Rules, there appears to be a mistake on the part of the court by putting a date as 30.4.2007 from which date the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential monetary and retiral benefits but according to the provision of Fundamental Rules, the said date should have been 21.8.2002 when the petitioner had been dismissed from service. 7. As against this Mr. RS Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. submits that said date i.e. 30.4.2007 does not appear to have been mentioned by the court in its order unintentionally, rather that appears to be intentional and thereby review application is not maintainable, rather the petitioner should have preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court if he has been aggrieved with that part of the had not worked during the period of his dismissal till his superannuation and therefore this review application is fit to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including the judgment in question, we do find that this court after going into the merit of the case relating to the departmental proceeding had set aside the order of dismissal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including the judgment in question, we do find that this court after going into the merit of the case relating to the departmental proceeding had set aside the order of dismissal. In such event, consequential order would have been in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules which reads as follows: “(3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.” The aforesaid provisions does clearly stipulate that if the order of dismissal is set aside on going into the merit of the case, then the delinquent would be entitled to have monetary benefits and other allowances from the date of dismissal. 9. Perhaps, the court being unmindful of the said provision passed the order that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential monetary and retiral benefits w.e.f. 30.4.2007 which is the date of retirement though it should have been from the date when the petitioner was dismissed from service, i.e. from 21.8.2002. 10. On account of such error being crept in, the petitioner will certainly be deprived of his legal rights and thereby the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the mistake of the court. Under the circumstances, we do find that this Review Application is very much maintainable. Accordingly, we are constrained to hold that the petitioner be given all consequential monetary and retiral benefits w.e.f. 21.8.2002. Accordingly, this order be carried out within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order. Thus, this review application stands allowed.