5. Further, if the pay fixation is erroneously permitted to continue even for the purpose of determining the last pay of the review petitioners for the purpose of determining their retiral benefits, then it will amount to permitting the review petitioners/respondents in the O.P. to enjoy higher pensionary benefits than that is admissible to them and consequently, such mistakes would be perpetuated even in the case of subsequent grant of family pension, etc. In other words, if the impugned directions in paras 14 and 15 are not issued, at least on a prospective basis, then it will amount to permitting the review petitioners to enjoy benefits, which were not otherwise entitled to them and hence it will amount to the court permitting unjust enrichment. Further very crucially, the amounts involved are to be paid from the public exchequer, which essentially flow from the hard earned money of the tax payers. The pubic exchequer shall not suffer. Hence only to strike a balance between the rival pleas that we have issued the impugned directions at paras 14 and 15 of the judgment under review so as to permit the further process for consideration of recovery as mentioned herein above. We do not find that the said directions are vitiated by any error apparent on the face of record or that the review petitioners have made out other valid grounds for review, viz., production of additional materials, which could not have been produced before the at the earlier point of time, etc. The arguments raised by the review petitioners in these proceedings would virtually amount to making critique on the correctness of those directions on the basis of the merits of the matter. That is not permissible in review and the remedy lies elsewhere. Hence we are constrained to hold that no grounds have been made out for review. Consequently, the review petition will stand dismissed. ”
