JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP(M) No.331/2019 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused averments contained in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that the delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither willful nor intentional, rather same has occurred on account of lengthy administrative procedure. Accordingly the application at hand is allowed and delay in maintaining accompanying review petition, which has sufficiently been explained, is condoned in the interest of justice. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No.33 of 2019 2. Instant Review Petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the review petitioners, H.P. State Electricity Board (for short 'Electricity Board') seeking therein review of judgment dated 29.06.2017, passed by this Court in LPA No.515 of 2011, whereby LPA having been filed by the Electricity Board laying therein challenge to judgment dated 24.06.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.14671/2008, came to be dismissed. 3. In nutshell, case of the Electricity Board, as emerges from the pleadings, is that since the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') came to be appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2006, he was entitled for appointment on daily wage basis as per policy in vogue. 4. As per Electricity Board, appointment on compassionate ground to the family members of deceased employee, who died in harness, could only be made on daily wage basis in terms of office memorandum/policy, which was made applicable on 6.10.2005. Hence, findings returned/directions issued by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No.14671 of 2008, which was further upheld by this Court while deciding LPA to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on regular basis with effect from 9.10.2006 with all consequential benefits, is not based upon facts as well as law and as such needs to be reviewed in the instant proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which could persuade this Court to review its judgment. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground in the month of October, 2004. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which could persuade this Court to review its judgment. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground in the month of October, 2004. Initially his case was considered for appointment to the post of Helper (Sub-Station) on 17.02.2006, pursuant to which he joined his duties on 22.02.2006. Petitioner made a representation to the Electricity Board for considering his case for regular appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on 9.10.2006, whereafter, he was offered appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on daily wage basis vide office order dated 11.12.2006. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, after the death of his father on 7.10.2004, submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis in the month of October, 2004, and as such, his case was required to be considered as per the then existing notification dated 19.06.1990 for appointment on regular basis because admittedly at that time, there was no provision, as such, for appointment on daily wages. Amendment, if any, was carried out in the aforesaid policy/notification on 6.10.2005, whereby admittedly policy decision was taken to offer compassionate appointment on daily wage basis. Since, father of the petitioner died on 7.10.2004 and application for appointment on compassionate ground came to be filed prior to the amendment in notification/policy for compassionate appointment, learned Single Judge rightly arrived at a conclusion that the office memorandum dated 6.10.2005 will apply prospectively and will not apply in those cases where the death of employee has occurred before this date. This court while concurring with the aforesaid findings returned by learned Single Judge has categorically returned the findings that the rights of the petitioner stand crystallized on the basis of notification dated 19.06.1990, according to which, he was to be considered for regular appointment. Since the petitioner has/had a legal right to be considered as per notification dated 19.6.1990, we do not find any force in the arguments of Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board that since the petitioner joined his duties on 22.02.2006, his case ought to have been considered in terms of office memorandum dated 6.10.2005. 6. Since the petitioner has/had a legal right to be considered as per notification dated 19.6.1990, we do not find any force in the arguments of Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board that since the petitioner joined his duties on 22.02.2006, his case ought to have been considered in terms of office memorandum dated 6.10.2005. 6. In view of above, this Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the judgment sought to be reviewed, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise. 7. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013) 2 SCC 1 , present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP(M) No.331/2019 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused averments contained in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that the delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither willful nor intentional, rather same has occurred on account of lengthy administrative procedure. Accordingly the application at hand is allowed and delay in maintaining accompanying review petition, which has sufficiently been explained, is condoned in the interest of justice. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No.33 of 2019 2. Instant Review Petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the review petitioners, H.P. State Electricity Board (for short 'Electricity Board') seeking therein review of judgment dated 29.06.2017, passed by this Court in LPA No.515 of 2011, whereby LPA having been filed by the Electricity Board laying therein challenge to judgment dated 24.06.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.14671/2008, came to be dismissed. 3. In nutshell, case of the Electricity Board, as emerges from the pleadings, is that since the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') came to be appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2006, he was entitled for appointment on daily wage basis as per policy in vogue. 4. 3. In nutshell, case of the Electricity Board, as emerges from the pleadings, is that since the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') came to be appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2006, he was entitled for appointment on daily wage basis as per policy in vogue. 4. As per Electricity Board, appointment on compassionate ground to the family members of deceased employee, who died in harness, could only be made on daily wage basis in terms of office memorandum/policy, which was made applicable on 6.10.2005. Hence, findings returned/directions issued by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No.14671 of 2008, which was further upheld by this Court while deciding LPA to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on regular basis with effect from 9.10.2006 with all consequential benefits, is not based upon facts as well as law and as such needs to be reviewed in the instant proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which could persuade this Court to review its judgment. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground in the month of October, 2004. Initially his case was considered for appointment to the post of Helper (Sub-Station) on 17.02.2006, pursuant to which he joined his duties on 22.02.2006. Petitioner made a representation to the Electricity Board for considering his case for regular appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on 9.10.2006, whereafter, he was offered appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on daily wage basis vide office order dated 11.12.2006. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, after the death of his father on 7.10.2004, submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis in the month of October, 2004, and as such, his case was required to be considered as per the then existing notification dated 19.06.1990 for appointment on regular basis because admittedly at that time, there was no provision, as such, for appointment on daily wages. Amendment, if any, was carried out in the aforesaid policy/notification on 6.10.2005, whereby admittedly policy decision was taken to offer compassionate appointment on daily wage basis. Amendment, if any, was carried out in the aforesaid policy/notification on 6.10.2005, whereby admittedly policy decision was taken to offer compassionate appointment on daily wage basis. Since, father of the petitioner died on 7.10.2004 and application for appointment on compassionate ground came to be filed prior to the amendment in notification/policy for compassionate appointment, learned Single Judge rightly arrived at a conclusion that the office memorandum dated 6.10.2005 will apply prospectively and will not apply in those cases where the death of employee has occurred before this date. This court while concurring with the aforesaid findings returned by learned Single Judge has categorically returned the findings that the rights of the petitioner stand crystallized on the basis of notification dated 19.06.1990, according to which, he was to be considered for regular appointment. Since the petitioner has/had a legal right to be considered as per notification dated 19.6.1990, we do not find any force in the arguments of Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board that since the petitioner joined his duties on 22.02.2006, his case ought to have been considered in terms of office memorandum dated 6.10.2005. 6. In view of above, this Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the judgment sought to be reviewed, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise. 7. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013) 2 SCC 1 , present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.