JUDGMENT By the Court.—Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 287802 of 2012. The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application has been filed, inter alia, praying for condoning the delay in filing Civil Misc. Review Application No. 287811 of 2012. 2. An Affidavit, sworn by Santosh Kumar (petitioner -appellant), has been filed in support of both the aforesaid Applications, namely, Delay Condonation Application and Review Application. 3. Issue notice on the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application 4. Notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the said respondents. 5. Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that he does not propose to file Counter-affidavit in reply to the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the averments made in the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application and its supporting Affidavit, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the aforesaid Civil Misc. Review Application No. 287811 of 2012. The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application, therefore, deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed. 7. The delay in filing the aforesaid Review Application is condoned. Civil Misc. Review Application No. 287811 of 2012. 8. The aforesaid Review Application has been filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking review of the Judgment dated 23.5.2012 by which the Special Appeal, being Special Appeal No. 1066 of 2004, filed by the petitioner-appellant, was dismissed. 9. We have heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant, and perused the Review Application and its supporting Affidavit. 10. It is submitted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant that in the said Judgment dated 23.5.2012, this Court observed as under : “From a perusal of the above-quoted proposal, it is evident that the same was intended to apply to the persons, who were working on the date of the said decision on daily wages/consolidated wages/contractual basis, and such persons were proposed to be adjusted towards the backlog vacancies, The petitioner -appellant was admittedly engaged on 7.3.2003, and he joined on 1.4.2003, and thus he was evidently not working on the date of the said decision dated 20.2.2003, and, therefore, the petitioner-appellant cannot take benefit of the said decision”. 11. 11. Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant submits that even though the petitioner-appellant was engaged by the order dated 7.3.2003, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application filed with the Special Appeal but, as per the contents of the said order dated 7.3.2003, the engagement of the petitioner-appellant was made with effect from 1.2.2003 on contractual basis. 12. It is submitted that the observation made in the afore-quoted paragraph of the said Judgment dated 23.5.2012 that “ the petitioner-appellant was admittedly engaged on 7.3.2003,” was not correct. 13. We have considered the submissions made by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant,. 14. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant that the engagement of the petitioner was made by the order dated 7.3.2003 (Annexure 1 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application filed with the Special Appeal), and pursuant to the order dated 7.3.2003, the petitioner -appellant joined on 1.4.2003, as is evident from the joining letter, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application filed with the Special Appeal. 15. In the Judgment dated 23rd May, 2012, reference was made to the contents of the Agenda Item No. 6 of the meeting of U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board, held on 20.2.2003, and it was pointed out that the proposal “was intended to apply to the persons, who were working on the date of the said decision on daily wages/consolidated wages/contractual basis, and such persons were proposed to be adjusted towards the backlog vacancies. ” It was further noticed in the Judgment dated 23rd May, 2012 that the petitioner -appellant was “not working on the date of said decision dated 20.2.2003. “ In the circumstances, the Judgment dated 23rd May, 2003 concluded that “the petitioner-appellant cannot take benefit of the said decision.” 16. It will thus be noticed that the requirement emphasised in the decision dated 20.2.2003 was that the persons must be "working on the date of the said decision.” It is not disputed that the petitioner-appellant was not working on the date of the said decision dated 20.2.2003 as the petitioner-appellant joined on 1.4.2003. 17. It will thus be noticed that the requirement emphasised in the decision dated 20.2.2003 was that the persons must be "working on the date of the said decision.” It is not disputed that the petitioner-appellant was not working on the date of the said decision dated 20.2.2003 as the petitioner-appellant joined on 1.4.2003. 17. In view of the above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in our Judgment dated 23.5.2012 requiring review of the said Judgment. 18. Further, it is well-settled that the Court while dealing with a Review Petition cannot act as an Appellate Court and consider the merits of the Judgment sought to be reviewed. A Review Petition cannot be an Appeal in disguise. 19. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: 1. Lal Mohamad v. S.D.O., Bareilly and another, 1959 ALJ 223. 2. Smt. Savitri Devi v. Lal Chand (dead) and others, 2004 (55) ALR 690 (paragraph 45). 20. In view of the above legal position, the correctness or otherwise of the said Judgment dated 23.5.2012, cannot be gone into by this Court in a Revision Petition. 21. In case, the petitioner -appellant was aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 23.5.2012 on merits, it was open to the petitioner-appellant to pursue his remedy before the higher Court for seeking appropriate relief. 22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Review Petition filed by the petitioner-appellant lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. —————