ORDER : This application, under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, is filed seeking review of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos. 2297 of 2003 and 1036 of 2004 dated 26.6.2014. 2. The relief sought for by the review petitioner herein, in WP Nos. 15826 of 1990 and 19768 of 1994, was to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Executive Engineer (E3) from the date his immediate junior was promoted, and to promote him as a Divisional Engineer from the date of promotion of his immediate juniors, with all consequential benefits by treating non-consideration of his claims for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petitions by order dated 5.9.2003, and directed the respondents to consider the case of the review petitioner herein for further promotion to the next higher posts of Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer with effect from the date his immediate juniors were considered, and to pass appropriate orders within four months. 4. Against, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP Nos. 15826 of 1990 and 19768 of 1994 dated 5.9.2003, the respondents in both the writ petitions preferred appeals in WA Nos.2297 of 2003 and 1036 of 2004. By its order in WA Nos.2297 of 2003 and 1036 of 2004 dated 26.6.2014, a Division Bench of this Court directed as under: “We therefore dispose of the writ appeals directing that- (a) the respondent shall be deemed to have been promoted to E3 category in the year 1998 with effect from the date on which his immediate junior in E2 category was promoted; (b) similarly, he shall be deemed to have been promoted to E4 category from the date on which his immediate junior in E3 category was promoted; (c) the retirement benefits or pension, as the case may be, for the respondent shall be worked out, duly taking those two days of promotion, into account and by allowing the scales of pay attached to those posts; and (d) the necessary re-working of the retirement benefits or pension, as the case may be, including payment of differential amount, shall be undertaken in this behalf within three months from today. The common judgment in the writ petitions shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.” 5. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, would submit that, while the review petitioner was no doubt granted promotion to the category of E3 with effect from the year 1988, and to the post of Divisional Engineer in E4 category from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted in the E4 category, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that, by the date on which the order under review was passed, the review petitioner had retired from service after having been promoted to the higher E5, E6 and E7 categories belatedly; and he had retired from service while working in the E7 category. Learned Counsel would submit that, while the review petitioner was granted notional fitment in E3 and E4 categories, from the date of his deemed promotion, the respondents had, in view of the order of the Division Bench, denied him the consequential benefits of notional fitment in E5, E6 and E7 categories from an earlier date; and, hence, the order necessitated review. We must express our inability to agree. 6. A party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 ; Northern India Caters (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 ; Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 ; G.L. Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189 ; O.N. Mohindroo v. District Judge, Delhi, (1971) 3 SCC 5 .) 7. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility (Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 ; Lily Thomas's case (supra)). The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, and not to substitute a view. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The petition seeking review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. Once a review petition is dismissed, no further petition of review can be entertained. (Lily Thomas's case (supra)). 8. The relief sought for, in the writ petitions, was to direct the respondents to promote the review petitioner herein to the post of Executive Engineer (E3), and to the post of Divisional Engineer (E4) from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. The Division Bench granted the review petitioner herein promotion to E3 category from the year 1998, with effect from the date his immediate junior in E2 category was promoted. He was also given the benefit of promotion to E4 category, from the date his immediate junior in E3 category was promoted. The review petitioner herein seeks a similar order with respect to E5, E6 and E7 categories, which relief he did not even seek in the writ petitions. 9. The question whether the review petitioner herein is entitled for promotion to E5, E6 and E7 categories, from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted to such categories, was neither the subject-matter of the writ petitions nor was it required to be considered by the Division Bench while passing the order under review. 10. Under the guise of seeking review, the review petitioner cannot now be heard to contend that he should be granted a relief which he did not even seek in the writ petitions, on the specious plea that it would amount to a consequential relief. We see no reason, therefore, to review the order of the Division Bench. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the review petitioner's entitlement to be given promotion from an earlier date in the categories of E5, E6 and E7; and this order shall not disable the review petitioner from availing his legal remedies seeking grant of such a relief.