(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan)
1. T.A.No.123 of 2009 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 06.04.2010. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the G.O.No.12(16)/86/D Pens/Sers, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 03.06.1988, before the appropriate forum under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Smt.Roja Ramani had filed the said T.A.No.123 of 2009 for grant of family pension with effect from 29th March 1992 ie., the due date of reporting back from leave for duty of her husband or from 26th March 1992 ie. From the date of issue of apprehension roll by the Commanding Officer. She has challenged the order of the respondents vide letter No.14571886 / Court Cases / Pen dated 17.09.2008. The said impugned order was passed by the respondents as per the directions given in the Judgment dated 13.06.2007 passed in W.P.No.20256 of 2007 filed by the same petitioner Smt.Roja Ramani. The said impugned order was passed by the respondents in accordance with the Government of India, Ministry of Defence Letter No.12(16)/86/D Pens/Sers, dated 03.06.1988, according to which the family pension accrued to the family of the missing personnel from the date of lodging of the FIR or expiry of the leave of the service personnel, whichever is later. From the impugned order the inference we could gather is that since the petitioner had lodged the FIR with the Civil Police on 26th October 2002, she is entitled for the grant of family pension from the date of lodging of the FIR only ie., from 26.10.2002.
2. At the time of Final Hearing of T.A.No.123 of 2009, the said position was clearly explained to the learned counsel and that if at all the petitioner has got any grievance, she can only challenge the G.O.No.12(16)/86/D Pens/Sers, dated 03.06.1988, before the appropriate forum, since the impugned order is based only on the said G.O.No.12(16)/86/D Pens/Sers, dated 03.06.1988. Only after satisfying himself the learned counsel has come forward to make an endorsement in the petition as to the effect that he is withdrawing the petition with liberty to challenge the G.O.No.12(16)/86/D Pens/Sers, dated 03.06.1988. In the Review Application the petitioner has reiterated the pleading she had already made in T.A.No.123 of 2009. There is no new material placed in the Review Application for consideration by this Tribunal to review the order passed in T.A.No.123 of 2009.
3. Under such circumstances, We do not find any valid ground or material irregularities on the face of the order for reviewing the same. Hence, this Review Application is dismissed under Rule 18(3) of the Armed Forces (Procedure) Rules in the circulation stage itself. No costs.