JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the review applicant, Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The ground for review in the present review application is that once the main writ petition i.e. Writ A No.6758 of 2004; Anil Kishore Gupta Vs. State Bank of India through its C.G.M. and 4 others, was decided finally and was allowed quashing the impugned orders, why the consequential relief may not be granted to him. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant invited attention of this Court on the prayer made in the subsequent writ petition i.e. Writ A No.6145 of 2002; Anil Kishor Vs. State Bank of India thru Chairman and 3 others , which is as follows: "i) by a suitable writ, order of direction or by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus hold and declare that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted, as such, by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof; ii) by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus command the respondent authorities: a) to issue formal promotion order in favour of the petitioner - promoting him as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001, as a result of the above deemed promotion and issue posting orders to the said effect forthwith; b) to allow the petitioner all consequential benefits as a result of the above viz. arrears of pay, seniority, etc. etc. c) to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the aforesaid arrears of pay etc. arrears of pay, seniority, etc. etc. c) to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the aforesaid arrears of pay etc. iii) by a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of interim Mandamus command the respondent authorities to at least issue, forthwith, formal posting orders in favour of the petitioner as Trainee Officer, and pay him his current and future salary of the said post of Trainee Officer, without any interruption or hindrance, whatsoever in view of his deemed promotion as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001; iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and, in the interest of justice, and v) to allow exemplary costs of the petition, to the petitioner, against the respondents." 4. Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that in view of provisions contained under Chapter 9 Rule XIV of Rule of the Court, the entire facts and circumstances are to be placed and the diligence in regard to overlook the material on record only, the review application can be maintained. 5. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that in view of judgment in the case of State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Gautam, the judgment passed in the writ petition is not sustainable in law. The argument advanced by Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 is also misplaced as while deciding the review petition, the material placed before the Court, if not considered, then it is left open to the Court to decide the review petition in accordance with that. 6. Writ A No.6758 of 2004 was allowed by means of judgment rendered in the present case and connected Writ A No.6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief has been granted to the petitioner, therefore, in view of above material, the consequential prayer made in paragraph 3 of the present judgment is to be granted, in case the petition is allowed. 7. In this regard, against the judgment dated 16.08.2023, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed special appeal before Division Bench of this Court, which is sub judice and no final order has been passed till date, therefore, the argument advanced by him is misplaced. 8. 7. In this regard, against the judgment dated 16.08.2023, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed special appeal before Division Bench of this Court, which is sub judice and no final order has been passed till date, therefore, the argument advanced by him is misplaced. 8. In view of above, the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant has merit in the case and therefore, the consequential reliefs are granted to him. 9. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued holding and declaring that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof. 10. In view of reasons recorded above, the review application is allowed.