Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10365-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 33 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- Chairperson, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Lko and 7 others Counsel for Applicant :- Annapurna Agnihotri Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. The review application is barred by 122 days. 2. For the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 4. The present review application has been filed in relation to order dated 12.09.2024 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 114 of 2023, whereby the special appeal filed by the applicant against order passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, came to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant made vehement submissions that the indications made in para 14 of the judgment regarding the application seeking compassionate appointment having been filed after eight years of death of the bread earner, is factually incorrect inasmuch as though the mother of the applicant died in the year 2005, as at the relevant time he was minor, on attaining the age of majority in the year 2010, and decision on the inter se dispute between the applicant and his sister, he applied in the year 2013 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the application was made after eight years and on that count the order requires review. 6. Submissions have also been made that provisions of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, empower the State Government in case of undue hardship to relax the requirement regarding the time limit, however, the said aspect was not taken into consideration. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and have perused the material available on record. 8. The indications made in para 14 of the judgment are specific, indicating making of the application after eight years of death of the bread earner, which is factually correct inasmuch as the death took place in the year 2005 and the application after attaining majority was made in the year 2013. The fact that the applicant was minor at the time of death of his mother and after attaining majority, moved application in the year 2013 does not change the fact that the application was made after eight years from the death of the bread earner. 9. So far as the aspect pertaining to the power of relaxation is concerned, the said aspect has been considered by this Court in para 10 of the judgment with regard to the larger Bench judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. : AIR 2015 All 47. 10. In view thereof, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record so as to review the order impugned. The review application has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Rakesh/AHA (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench