ORDER : 1. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 8.11.2020 by which this Court has disposed of writ petition and directed petitioner to deposit requisite contribution to get his pensionary benefits in pursuance of the policy issued by the applicant-bank based on Circular dated 20.8.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that order dated 18.11.2020 was passed at the admission stage itself without granting opportunity to file reply to writ petition. He further submits that in light of Circular dated 20.8.2010, it is for the respondent employee to deposit the contribution at the time of exercising option. Petitioner submitted his option on 13.10.2010, but did not deposit requisite contribution. 3. Learned counsel for respondent employee submits that on the date of hearing of writ petition, applicant-bank was represented by the counsel, who had also brought to the notice of the Court that employee has not deposited contribution which he is required to deposit in view of Circular dated 20.8.2010, and only thereafter order dated 18.11.2020 was passed. In these circumstances, no relief, as claimed by applicants in this review petition, can be granted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with review petition including order dated 18.11.2020. 5. Perusal of order under review would show that it is bi-parte order. Grounds raised in review petition that respondent employee is not entitled for pension as he has not deposited contribution at the time of exercising option. Further perusal of the order would show that aforementioned ground was raised by counsel representing applicant Bank in writ petition and thereafter only this Court directed the petitioner to deposit requisite contribution and in case respondent employee is not aware of the amount to be deposited, he was directed to approach respondent No.3 & 4 to writ petition, and in turn, they were directed to guide the employee in ascertaining the exact amount that he has to be contribute towards pension scheme. 6. From the above facts it is clear that ground based on which this review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 18.11.2020, has already been raised before the writ Court and taking into consideration that aspect of matter, the writ Court has disposed of writ petition with certain observations and directions. 7. 6. From the above facts it is clear that ground based on which this review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 18.11.2020, has already been raised before the writ Court and taking into consideration that aspect of matter, the writ Court has disposed of writ petition with certain observations and directions. 7. It is settled law that to seek review of the order party applying review has to show error apparent on the face of record. Grounds raised and considered are not permissible to reagitate in the garb of review as every error is not permitted to be corrected in exercise of review jurisdiction. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 while dealing with scope and ambit of review proceedings, has observed as under:- “8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 , speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations (para 3): “It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.........” 9. In case of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi & ors, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10........... There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which was not of such a nature, "which had to be detected by along drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J.” 10. In the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP and Ors., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “10......A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous.” 11. A bare reading of above decisions makes it clear that jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining review petition is very limited and unless it is pointed out that there is error apparent on face of record, in the order sought to be reviewed, review petition is not to be entertained even if it is found that order under review is erroneous on merits. 12. In case at hand, the applicant has failed to point out error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 8.11.2020. The sole ground based on which review of order dated 08.11.2020 is sought by applicants was already considered while passing order under review, and therefore, I am of the considered view that this review petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The sole ground based on which review of order dated 08.11.2020 is sought by applicants was already considered while passing order under review, and therefore, I am of the considered view that this review petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.