JUDGMENT : Through this review petition the applicant-State of Jharkhand seeks review of order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 178 of 2013 by which the Deputy Commissioner-respondent no. 2 was directed to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner's son. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the applicants is that the direction of the writ Court is in the teeth of Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Ram Prasad Singh and Anr. vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.” reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 38 . 3. The learned counsel for the review applicants submits that the writ Court's order is founded on a premise that the writ petitioner's husband was a government servant whereas he was a Work Charge employee and if the writ Court's order is not reviewed it may be cited as a precedent in future cases. The grounds urged by the review applicants are extracted below : i. For that the order is contrary to Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2005 (III) JLJR 38 . ii. For that the order if not reviewed will be sited as a precedence to all such aggrieved which may be aggrieved by the Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court. iii. For that the petitioner was never brought to the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court emphatically that the husband of the petitioner was a work charged employee and the order was passed on the assumption as if he was a Government servant and thus was entitled to all such needs which were Government servant dependent are entitled to get upon his death. iv. For that if the order is not reviewed will cause gross failure of justice. (Typographical and the grammatical mistakes are in the application) 4. It is recorded at this stage itself that no other ground has been urged by the learned State counsel on behalf of the review applicants for review of the order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 178 of 2013. 5. Briefly stated, on death of his father who was employed under the Road Construction Department husband of the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. It is stated that he was appointed on 22.02.1988 as Path Mazdoor under the Road Construction Department. 5. Briefly stated, on death of his father who was employed under the Road Construction Department husband of the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. It is stated that he was appointed on 22.02.1988 as Path Mazdoor under the Road Construction Department. He died in harness on 20.03.2004 and thereafter the writ petitioner made several representations for payment of post-retiral benefits and compassionate appointment for her son. When no decision was taken by the respondents she came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1034 of 2012 which was disposed of by an order dated 27.03.2012 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision on her representation, expeditiously. In purported compliance of the order dated 27.03.2012 the respondent-Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 11.07.2012 by which writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment to her son was declined on the ground that appointment of her husband was illegal; he was appointed on compassionate grounds without the recommendation of the Compassionate Appointment Committee. The writ Court by an order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 178 of 2013 has quashed the aforesaid order by which the writ petitioner's son has been declined compassionate appointment. This order was taken in appeal by the review applicant-State of Jharkhand before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 17.04.2015 holding that, “there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal”. 6. About two and half years thereafter this review petition has been filed by the applicant-State of Jharkhand. It is pertinent to record that before that on 23.08.2014 the writ petitioner had filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 644 of 2014 and by an order dated 28.03.2017 finding prima-facie grounds for initiating a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the Registry was directed to issue show-cause notice. Thereafter, the contempt case was listed on 05.05.2017, 08.08.2017 and 16.08.2017. On 21.06.2018 a statement was made by the learned State counsel that the review petition seeking review of order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 178 of 2013 has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand. 7. By now it is well-settled that one of the considerations which shall be borne in mind for condonation of delay is stake of the parties. 7. By now it is well-settled that one of the considerations which shall be borne in mind for condonation of delay is stake of the parties. In this review petition not a single document, except pay-bill of Work Charge Establishment for the month of December, 1999 and a letter dated 18.05.2001, has been produced by the review applicants to demonstrate that father of the deceased employee was not employed under regular establishment or that the writ petitioner's husband was employed under the Work Charge Establishment. Even their appointment letters have not been produced by the State. Moreover, the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1034 of 2012 does not reflect the aforesaid stand taken by the State. In the above facts, I do not see how the judgment in “Ram Prasad Singh” can be relied upon by the review-applicants to seek review of the writ Court's order. And, after the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on merits it must be held that the review petition would not lie. Not only this review application appears to be a device to over-reach the writ Court's order, it lacks bonafide also. This is one aspect of the matter. 8. Besides the above, what is more important is the reasons disclosed by the State for delay in filing this review petition. In the application for condonation of delay it is simply stated that permission for filing review took procedural time. This application which contains 11 paragraphs does not disclose a single date how and when the file for obtaining permission for filing review application has been taken. The Deputy Commissioner is the proposed contemnor in the contempt case and the Deputy Commissioner was a party to the writ proceeding, however, the person who has sworn the affidavit in support of I.A. No. 7968 of 2017 does not affirm that he has filed this affidavit on behalf of the other applicants. At every stage of the proceeding the officers of the State were casual and, in fact, they have tried to misuse the process of the Court; a statutory right to appeal or review does not permit the State to file frivolous petitions. 9. In the aforesaid facts, the application for condonation of delay vide I.A. No. 7968 of 2018 is dismissed. 10. Consequently, the review application stands dismissed.