JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. There is a delay of 96 days in filing Special Appeal No. 92 of 2018. In the other connected appeals, delay has already been condoned. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Delay Condonation Application No. 1590 of 2018 is allowed. Delay in filing Appeal No. 92 of 2018 is condoned. 3. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed seeking the benefit of judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2014 with connected matters. 4. In the judgment, the learned Single Judge has in fact noted the stand of the appellant that the case is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition as follows:- “Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2014. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for release of retrial / pensionary benefits strictly in conformity with the ratio of the judgment cited hereinabove within a period of ten weeks from today.” 5. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that the controversy is concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench. He would submit that there is laches on the part of the writ petitioner and, in fact, it is pointed that this was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, yet this has not been considered. From the perusal of the judgment, we do not see that any such contention relating to laches was taken before the learned Single Judge. 6. Moreover, as to what transpires in the Court and as to what contention was raised, is a matter on which the judgment speaks. It is the complaint of the appellant before this Court that the contention taken by him before the learned Single Judge has not been considered. In this regard, the proper remedy would be to file a review / recall. 7. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere but we permit the appellant to file review / recall before the learned Single Judge in regard to the plea of laches which the appellant has allegedly taken before the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeals are disposed of. 9. 7. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere but we permit the appellant to file review / recall before the learned Single Judge in regard to the plea of laches which the appellant has allegedly taken before the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeals are disposed of. 9. We also leave it open to the appellant, if advised, to challenge this judgment also.