[2025:RJ-JP:3179-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 150/2024 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19250/2015 1. Uganti Devi Wife Of Late Shri Jai Narayan, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Ananda Colony, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Jharda Road, Hindaun City, District Karauli. 2. Smt. Krishna Kumari Daughter Of Shri Jai Narayan, Wife Of Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Ananda Colony, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Jharda Road, Hindaun City, District Karauli. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Asstt. Secretary (Recruitment), Jaipur Discom, Jaipur. 4. Asstt. Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom, Hindaun City, District Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. David Mehla on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 22/01/2025 1. Upon due consideration and the cause shown in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the review petition. Delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 2. Accordingly, application (No.494/2024) for condonation of delay is allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:3179-DB] (2 of 2) [WRW-150/2024] 3. Heard. 4. Petitioners have filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 05.02.2024. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Notification was issued on 28.10.2021 and it was given prospective effect. However, by the impugned order, impression goes that it has been given retrospective effect. 6. We are not inclined to entertain the review petition for the very reason that no specific directions were given by the Court, the case of the petitioners was pending before the Court since 2015 and respondents were directed to act in accordance with law. 7. Consequently, there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to entertain the review petition. 8. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Sanjay Kumawat/Mahima/60