JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Dr. R.K. Deepak, learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioners; Shri Ch. Robinchandra, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent and Shri S. Samarjeet, learned C.G.C. appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The instant review petition has been filed against the order dated 10.8.2016 passed by this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 369 of 2015 by which this Court has directed the petitioners and proforma respondents to calculate the pension or the family pension, as the case may be, and pay the same to the retired work-charged employees and family pension to the members of the deceased work-charged employees. 3. The facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of the present review petition, are that while in service, a large number of work-charged employees had served for more than 15 years after they being converted to work-charged employees in the year 1999 and thereafter, they were terminated from service in terms of various orders issued by the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur during the period from 2011 to 2014. Despite several requests being made to the concerned authorities for grant of pension or the family pension, the petitioners and proforma respondents failed to consider their requests which prompted the private respondent organization to file the said writ petition being WP (C) No. 369 of 2015. While considering the said writ petition, this Court had examined the provisions of the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 and decided the same vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2016, para 5 thereof reads as under:-- “5. It may be true that initially the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 were contemplated to provide terminal benefits only to the permanent work-charged staff and there was no provision for grant of family pension. But by way of an amendment vide Notification dated 21.6.1990, Rule 6-A was added wherein it is provided that family pension is admissible to the family members of the work-charged employees. Further amendment came to be made vide Notification dated 6.6.1991 adding Rule 6-B which provides that terminal benefit is admissible to the work-charged employees who retired prior to 16.9.1978 but are living on the date of issue of the order and family pension to the family members of the work-charged employee who died prior to 21.6.1990 provided the family members are living on the date of issue of the order. From the conjoint reading of the said Rule 6-A and 6-B, it is evident that family pension is admissible to the family members of all the work-charged employees and it is nowhere provided therein that the terminal benefits shall be granted to the permanent work-charged employees only or the members of its family.” 4. Moreover, the said writ petition has been allowed by this Court relying upon the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the then Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in Writ Appeal No. 29 of 2009 and the relevant para 6 of the judgment and order dated 10.8.2016 reads as under:-- “6. Shri Ch. Robinchandra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench in Writ Appeal No. 29 of 2009 wherein the husband of the petitioner therein was appointed as work-charged Assistant Meter Reader on 29.11.1980 and had expired while in service on 9.2.1988. When the petitioner therein approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of a writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted benefit of family pension to the petitioner therein who is the widow of Late Shri M. Khogendra Singh. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal being W.A. No. 29 of 2009 was preferred by the State Government wherein referring to an earlier Division Bench Judgment, it was contended by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the service of the petitioner's husband not being confirmed, she was not entitled to family pension. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent therein submitted that the submission of the learned Senior Government Advocate ought to be understood in the context of the Notification dated 8.9.1994 by which Rule 6-A was substituted without any retrospective application. While refusing to Interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench has held: “10. Rule 6-B which has been quoted above having not made any distinction between confirmed and permanent work-charged employees and those who are not confirmed work-charged employees, we are of the considered opinion that upon a reference to some other provisions, the expression 'confirmation and permanent' cannot be brought into the said provisions. Rule 6-B which has been quoted above having not made any distinction between confirmed and permanent work-charged employees and those who are not confirmed work-charged employees, we are of the considered opinion that upon a reference to some other provisions, the expression 'confirmation and permanent' cannot be brought into the said provisions. Be that as it may, on perusal of the chart which forms part of the Division Bench Judgment what we find is that, there are many work-charged employees whose services were confirmed retrospectively. In many cases, work-charged employees were confirmed after their expiry. Thus, it cannot be said that the benefits to which the families of the said work-charge employees were provided by way of family pension would require confirmation of service of the deceased husband of the petitioner for the said benefits to the petitioner. If for family pension to the petitioner confirmation of her husband's service is required, the authority may do so by passing appropriate order as was done in case of the persons which we find mention in the Division Bench Judgment. 11. Needless to say confirmation of service and/or permanency in service by issuance of specific order is always an uncertainty. In the normal circumstances, an employee after rendering a particular length of service is entitled to get his service confirmed or permanent. In the instant case, husband of the petitioner rendered sufficient length of service so as to earn confirmation. The chart which formed part of the Division Bench Judgment shows that a work-charged employee who was appointed on 3.8.1979 was confirmed w.e.f. 1.3.1986. Likewise, another employee who was appointed on 21.3.1978 was confirmed by order dated 25.2.1992 w.e.f. 12.8.1996. Another employee who was appointed on 1.8.1959 was confirmed w.e.f. 5.3.1968 by order dated 9.1.1974 after his expiry on 15.8.1968. There is another employee who was appointed on 28.3.1962 was confirmed on 6.3.1968 by order dated 9.1.1994 after his expiry on 8.1.1983.” 5. The ground on which the judgment and order dated 10.8.2016 has been assailed in the review petition, is that in view of the letter dated 22.10.2016 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur by the Under Secretary, PHED, Government of Manipur enclosing therewith office memoranda, it was impossible for the Department to comply with the Court's order and therefore, the instant review petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment and order dated 10.8.2016. 6. 6. The power of review ought to be ordinarily conferred by the statute. So far as the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, Article 137 of the Constitution of India confers power of review upon it. But there is no such provision in respect of the High Courts. The issue regarding the power of review that can be exercised by the High Court, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the High Court, under Article 226, has an inherent power, apart from statutory conditions, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In the present case, as is evident from the judgment and order dated 10.8.2016, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court in the light of the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 of the Division Bench of the then Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and moreover, the said judgment and order dated 10.8.2016 was pronounced by this Court prior to the said letter dated 22.10.2016 being addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur by the Under Secretary, PHED, Government of Manipur. The averment made in the petition that the review petition is being filed immediately after the discovery of the documents filed as Annexure-X/2, does not appear to be correct for the reason that the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 was passed, by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court after the office memoranda having been issued in the year 2006 and 2007. It is never the case of the review petitioners and the proforma respondents that the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 had been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in this regard, no material was placed on record by the review petitioners and the proforma respondents herein for perusal by this Court. It may be noted that the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 is not meant only for the PHED but also for all the Engineering Departments in the State and in respect of the other Engineering Departments like MI, IFCD, Works etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court had refused to interfere with many such judgment and orders passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. The PHED may get in touch with the other Engineering Departments to get itself fully aware of the various orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The PHED may get in touch with the other Engineering Departments to get itself fully aware of the various orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above and having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the review petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.