Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:671 Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 240 of 2024 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical And Health Services U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Laxmi Narayan Gupta Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Order on delay condonation application This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. Heard. The reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned. Order on memo of writ petition Heard. Instant review application has been filed praying for review of the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 22466 (SS) of 2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed as not pressed. Earlier the petitioner had filed an application for recall of the order dated 26.08.2019 which was also dismissed as not pressed. Now the review application has been filed contending that the writ petition had been dismissed as not pressed by the earlier counsel without consulting the petitioner and hence it is prayed that the order be recalled. A relevant aspect of the matter is that the review application has been filed by a new counsel which is clearly impermissible keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & anr Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and anr reported in 1997 (9) SCC 736 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: "It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming and not worthy or conductive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner- respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared not was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at a earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession." Another aspect of the matter is that the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that his claim for compassionate appointment had been rejected on the ground of sufficient retiral dues having been received by the family of the petitioner. However, the said dues are insufficient to sustain the family. He further states that at the time of the death of his mother, his father was a Government servant. There is a clear bar in Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 whereby in case either of the spouse is in service then the dependents would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for review of the order dated 26.08.2019 is made out. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench