1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of our judgment, dated 30-9-1985 whereby an appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2. The grounds taken up in the review petition give an indication as if a re-hearing of the whole matter is sought. It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a rehearing is not permissible in review. He has finally confined his submissions to the observations contained in the judgment of a connected matter, namely Mazhar Saeed Qureshi v. Government of the Punjab 1986 SCMR 12 in the penultimate paragraph to the following effect:- "If on the interpretation of Service Rules he was to obtain a benefit the effect of Service Tribunals decision is not to deprive him of it. As the questions concerning the interpretation of the rules has been dealt with by us in the connected appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1983), Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Secretary to Government, Punjab and 37 others 1986 SCMR 1 disposed of today we do not propose to undertake the exercise here and for the benefit of this appellant arising as it does out of a miscellaneous application."
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the dismissal of his appeal without any such indication, the department is implementing the rules as interpreted by this Court actually denying him or is likely to deny him the benefits which flow from such interpretation.
4. In the three connected matters reported in the same volume of the reports, we had apart from dealing with the individual claim of the appellants before us also indicated the true meaning and effect of the rules applicable to Irrigation Engineers of the Punjab for their recruitment, seniority etc. In implementing those rules in accordance with the interpretation afforded by this Court if any benefit in fact accrues to the petitioner to anyone else similarly situate within the service or on his induction into service the same cannot ordinarily be denied unless there be any express provision or principle of law. We are making this clear only because the petitioner has expressed an apprehension and not because what he apprehends has already taken place. With these observations, the petition for review is rejected.