The Supreme Court held that Article 32 cannot be used to attack its own judgments—recourse lies only to review or curative petitions. It rejected the notion that Rajesh Chander Sood was decided per incuriam, noting mere disagreement doesn’t suffice. On merits, it reaffirmed Sood’s upholding of the State’s financial cut-off date, the reasonableness of its retiree classification, and its power to withdraw unviable welfare schemes. Emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation, the Court dismissed the writ as misconceived and waived costs given the petitioners’ status as retired senior citizens.