D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners services having been terminated, an appeal was preferred against the order of termination. The said appeal was decided ex parte by order dated 15-10-1986 copy whereof was received by the petitioner on 21-5-1988. By an application dated 17-6-1988, the petitioner prayed for reconsidering the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the said application. ( 2 ) MR. S. R. Roy, learned counsel holding the brief of Shri T. Nath submits that there is no provision for review under the U. P. Employee Federal Authority (Business) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter called as the Regulation ). He further opposes the writ petition on the ground that even on merits, the said application for review which is contained as Annexure-5 to the writ petition does not make out any case for review. According to him even if the application is treated to be an application for recalling the ex pane order then sign the grounds disclosed do not make out a case for recalling. Therefore, according to him the writ petition does not merit consideration. ( 3 ) MR. H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand concends that though in the application a prayer for review was made but the same was in effect was for recalling the ex parte order and not tin application for review. He lies pointed out to the ground No. 2 of the said application and contended that on compassionate ground, the said application for recall should have been allowed since the petitioner was not being paid his salary for a long time and therefore he was unable to travel to Lucknow for the purpose of pursuing the appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further refers to Regulations 70 and 71 of the Regulation, 1976, While translating at the bar Regulation 71 (3) of the Regulation, 1976 he points out that second appeal is not maintainable unless it discloses grounds for review of the earlier decision. According to him because of the expression review used in Regulation 71 (3) of the Regulation 1976 it cannot be said that the power to review is absent with the appellate authority. Drawing may attention to Annexure VI to the writ petition he points out that the application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that there is no provision for review. Drawing may attention to Annexure VI to the writ petition he points out that the application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that there is no provision for review. ( 5 ) IN caserne application is treated to be one for review in that event also the order impugned cannot be sustained because of the provision contained in Regulation 71 (3) of the said regulation, 1976 which expressly indicates that second appeal can be made, provided there are grounds for review of the earlier decision. Therefore, it can not be said that there was no provision for review at all and thus the expression indicate the existence of the power to review. But the grounds disclosed in the application does not disclose any ground for review. At the out set learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application is not an application for review but for recalling the order and he confined his submission on ground No. 2 which according to him is sufficient ground for recalling. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was not being paid his salary for a long time. It is not disputed that the Society situate in a remote village and that the petitioner also resides in a remote village. It is also not disputed that the appellate authority sits at Lucknow. The economic disability may be a ground for a poor man to attend the appeal in time. Therefore, in my opinion the ground No. 2 appears to be sufficient for recalling the order. Accordingly, the matter requires to be sent back. But considering the long passage of time since 1988 when the writ petition was moved it would serve no useful purpose in sending the case back only for the purpose of deciding the application for recalling, particularly in view of the fact that the order impugned is an ex parte one and there is no power to review though such power is recognised in Regulation 71 (3) of Regulation, 1976. Therefore the impugned orders dated 10-12-1986 and 26-7-1988, contained as Annexures-4 and 6 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari do issue. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the application for recalling is also allowed. Therefore the impugned orders dated 10-12-1986 and 26-7-1988, contained as Annexures-4 and 6 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari do issue. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the application for recalling is also allowed. The appellate authority being respondent No. 5, shall rehear the appeal on a date to be fixed after two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent No. 5 by the petitioner. The said date may be informed to the petitioner on the date of production of certified copy of the order itself. In case the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, the matter may be again decided ex parte. It may however be mentioned that I have not entered into the merits of the case and the appellate authority shall be free to decide the case in accordance with law on merits without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. No order as to costs. ( 7 ) LET a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 7 days. .