ORDER : It is an admitted position that the applicant-Meera Devi is the widow of the deceased employee, Late Saryu Prasad Sah. It is also in disputed that in the event challenge to the order of dismissal thrown by the deceased employee is allowed, the applicant would be entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits. Vide order dated 18.10.2013, the application for substitution, permitting the applicant to pursue the review petition, was allowed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the respondents have filed counter-affidavit to the instant review petition and the matter can be finally heard and disposed of, at this stage itself. 3. Questioning the maintainability of the instant review petition and contending that against order dated 01.02.2006, whereby the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn a review would not lie, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.V submits that the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant application labelled as Civil Review Petition is, in fact, an application seeking recall of order dated 01.02.2006 so that the writ petition challenging orders dated 14.05.2003 and 25.06.2003, whereby services of the deceased husband of the applicant were terminated, is heard and adjudicated on merits. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.V appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has referred to various paragraphs in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, however, I find that the reply is confined to the merits of the matter, which at this stage this Court is not inclined to examine. 6. Admittedly, husband of the applicant was appointed as Peon/Sevak-cum-Sweeper at Gamhariahhat, Ramgarh Circle and he was granted benefits of revised pay-scale pursuant to recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Commission and he was granted 1st TimeBound Promotion w.e.f. 14.04.1995. It appears that an order contained in letter dated 27.08.2001 was issued by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, whereunder salary to the husband of the applicant and others was stopped. Finally, on 14.05.2003 his services were terminated. Aggrieved, husband of the applicant approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003, however, during the pendency of the writ petition he died. Finally, on 14.05.2003 his services were terminated. Aggrieved, husband of the applicant approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003, however, during the pendency of the writ petition he died. On 01.02.2006 the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and challenging the said order the applicant approached this Court in LPA No.291 of 2009, however, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 18.12.2009, on the ground of delay. It appears that simultaneously the applicant filed W.P.(S) No.2227 of 2006 for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to her. Order dated 27.09.2012 passed in the said writ petition discloses that on the statement made by the counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner that the applicant would be advised to file appropriate application in W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003, without adjudicating the merits of the claim for grant of death-cum-retiral benefits, W.P.(S) No.2227 of 2006 was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to the applicant to file a recall application. 7. The aforesaid narration of the proceedings taken in Court and order dated 01.02.2006 in W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003 when read with order dated 18.12.2009 passed in L.P.A. No.291 of 2009, clearly disclose that the challenge to orders dated 14.05.2003 and 25.06.2003 has not been adjudicated on merits. It is by now settled that even a second writ petition is maintainable if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed without adjudicating the merits of the matter. The applicant being the widow of the deceased employee has a right in law to prosecute W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003. In “Lily Thomas & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” (2000) 6 SCC 224 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; “........ it cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of Justice. Law has to bend before justice.........” 8. The prayer made by the counsel appearing in W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003, to withdraw the writ petition is patently an error committed by him. Various proceedings initiated by the applicant in this Court establish that she, in fact, intended to prosecute W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003. The applicant who has valuable interest involved in the outcome of W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003 must be granted an opportunity to prosecute the writ petition. Various proceedings initiated by the applicant in this Court establish that she, in fact, intended to prosecute W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003. The applicant who has valuable interest involved in the outcome of W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003 must be granted an opportunity to prosecute the writ petition. Since the applicant cannot be left remediless and the doors for seeking legal remedy cannot be shut without granting an opportunity to her to prosecute the writ petition, I am of the opinion that order dated 01.02.2006 passed in W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003 is liable to be recalled and it is hereby recalled. 9. Consequently W.P.(S) No.4699 of 2003 is restored to its original file.