JUDGMENT : The State of Jharkhand has filed this petition seeking review of the order dated 16.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4048 of 2013. 2. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned State counsel would contend that compassionate appointment cannot be offered to dependent of a deceased employee who was not regularly appointed on a permanent post and while the rules for compassionate appointment were framed in the year 2015 a direction has been issued by the writ Court to consider claim of wife of the deceased employee who was appointed on purely temporary basis and had passed away in the year 2012. 3. In the order dated 16.01.2014, the writ Court has held as under: "11. I find that in the counter-affidavit the respondents have admitted that deductions on account of G.P.F. and insurance from the salary of the husband of the petitioner were made. A copy of order dated 20.03.2013 has been brought on record which would indicate that an amount of Rs. 86,825/- has been paid to the petitioner on account of Group Insurance Policy It also appears from the record of the case that the husband of the petitioner was granted revised pay-scale as per 6th Pay Commission Report. A separate Bank Account was open in which the salary of the husband of the petitioner was remitted regularly. 12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that though, a formal order for regularisation of service of the husband of the petitioner was not passed, he continued in service for more than 20 years on permanent basis. In the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the husband of the petitioner was though entitled for regularisation in service on the post of Warder, he was illegally denied benefit of the same. Since the husband of the petitioner has died on 23.07.2012 and there is no prayer for directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner. It would serve the ends of justice, if for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner is treated as a permanent employee. 13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would be considered by the respondent-authority as if, the husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee. 13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would be considered by the respondent-authority as if, the husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee. It is further ordered that arrears of salary if any, for the period for which the husband of the petitioner worked, would be released to the petitioner. The respondent-authority is also directed to release the amount of P.F. to the petitioner.” 4. The order passed in Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2017 reads as under : '(1) Counsel for the appellants is relying upon the document which was never placed before the learned Single Judge, especially which is annexed as Annexure S-4 filed with the supplementary affidavit. 2) As this document was never placed before the learned Single Judge, the same is not permissible to be presented before this Court. 3) Liberty is reserved with the appellants to file a review application. 4) With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal, is hereby disposed of. 5) In view of the final order passed in Letters Patent Appeal, both the interlocutory Applications are disposed of. " 5. A glance at the aforesaid order would disclose that the present review petition must remain confined to the document S-4 which was filed before the Letters Patent Court - S-4 document is the Rules for Compassionate Appointment, otherwise, the challenge to the order dated 16.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4048 of 2013 has failed. The expression used in the order dated 13.11.2017 is "disposed of' but in the ultimate analysis there should not be any doubt that the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on merits. There was no prayer by the learned State counsel to withdraw the appeal seeking liberty to file a review petition - as would appear from the order dated 13.11.2017 there was no such prayer made on behalf of the State; and the liberty given to the State to file a review petition was always with it. An order of dismissal by the Division Bench, reasoned or unreasoned, is binding on me and there is no material before me to infer that L.P.A. No. 251 of 2014 was not dismissed on merits - infact, that is not even urged by the State. An order of dismissal by the Division Bench, reasoned or unreasoned, is binding on me and there is no material before me to infer that L.P.A. No. 251 of 2014 was not dismissed on merits - infact, that is not even urged by the State. The only thing that can be examined in the present proceeding is whether S-4 document brings out such fact which if taken note of would have materially affected the writ Court's decision. 6. On the plea of impermissibility of retrospective operation of the Rules of 2015, it is required to be noted is that all procedural laws are normally retrospective in nature whether it is specifically mentioned in the Act/ Statute or not. The post of Warder is under the Home Department and it is not that Rules for compassionate appointment were framed by the State in the year 2015 for the first time - Rules were in place and those were only modified by the new Rules of 2015. By the Rules of 2015 no new substantive rights are created in favour of the dependents of a deceased employee rather such provisions have existed from before. 7. The Compassionate Appointment Rules of 2015 records that the Circular dated 05.10.1991 of the Government of Bihar was adopted and applicable in the State of Jharkhand and dependents of a deceased employee were granted compassionate appointment in terms thereof. It is admitted at Bar that in the Circular dated 05.10.1991, more clarity was introduced by providing specific criteria and other class of dependents were included under the new Rules. 8. It is admitted at Bar that in the Circular dated 05.10.1991, more clarity was introduced by providing specific criteria and other class of dependents were included under the new Rules. 8. The introductory paragraph of the letter dated 01.12.2015 which contains the new Compassionate Appointment Rules of 2015 thereof reads as under: funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k es dguk gS fd lsokdky es e`r ljdkjh lsod ds vkfJr dh vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu ds ekeys esa vc rd ,dhd`r fcgkj ljdkj ds ifji= laŒ18293 fnukad&05-10-1991 ,oa vuqorhZ ifji= ds vkyksd es dkjZokbZ dh tkrh jgh gSAa bl laca/k es ifjofrZr fLFkfr ,oa izHkkoh ifji=ks ds vk/kkj ij dkjZokbZ es mRiUu dfBukbZ;ka dks n`f"ViFk esa j[krs gq, lE;d fopkjksijkar jkT; esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr vc fuEufyf[kr ;kstuk d vuq:i djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS& English Translation: "As directed, with reference to above subject this is to state that till now employment on the compassionate ground to the dependent of the government servant died in harness was done in the light of the Circular No. 18293 dated 05.10.1991 and subsequent circulars of the Government of unified Bihar. In this regard, in view of the difficulties in taking steps on the basis of the prevalent circulars and in the changed circumstances, after due consideration it has been decided to make appointment on compassionate ground in the State as per the following scheme:-" 9. The husband of the writ petitioner who according to the State was appointed on temporary basis continued to serve on the post of Warder for long 20 years and as noted in the order dated 16.01.2014 he was granted benefits of pay-revision, protection under Group Insurance and other service benefits. The State has continued to take his services on a vacant post which was permanent in nature and thereby denied him the benefits of regular appointment. A question arises whether the employee was at default? In my opinion the answer is an emphatic “No". The State which has continued with an illegal practice even after the judgment in “State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)” (2006) 4 SCC 1 and did not formulate a policy for long 8 years and on a technical plea and that too intended to get a premium on its illegal action has sought to challenge the writ Court's order. The State which has continued with an illegal practice even after the judgment in “State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)” (2006) 4 SCC 1 and did not formulate a policy for long 8 years and on a technical plea and that too intended to get a premium on its illegal action has sought to challenge the writ Court's order. There is no doubt that regularisation of service is not a matter of right, but then, an employee can always insist that his claim for regularisation should have been considered within a reasonable time. For whatever reasons if appointments were not made on permanent basis and a person working on vacant sanctioned posts after continuing for several years has unfortunately passed away, a plea based on retrospective operation of the Compassionate Appointment Rules not being provided by the State cannot be countenance in law. 10. At this stage, it is pertinent to record that in paragraph no. 4 of the order dated 08.03.2008 passed by the Home Secretary who considered the claim of Warders pursuant to a direction by the writ Court, it is recorded that the Jail Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi had sent a report in which it was mentioned that the Warders who were the writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 433 of 2007 ("Benjamin Hembram & Others v. The State of Jharkhand & Others") were employed with "one day" break in every six months. In paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 08.03.2008, it is mentioned that there were 32 posts of Warder and 10 posts of Senior Warder vacant in the Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi and the appointment of the Warders including Pashupati Prasad Singh was not hit by the directions contained in letter no. 5940 dated 18.06.1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar whereby a prohibition was put on temporary appointments. It is further recorded in the said order that the Warders could not be regularised in service because confirmation from the Department was awaited, atleast since August, 2005. Even then, it seems no step was taken by the Department and the State of Jharkhand itself has admitted in this review petition that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 251 of 2014 the Regularisation Rules were framed. Even then, it seems no step was taken by the Department and the State of Jharkhand itself has admitted in this review petition that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 251 of 2014 the Regularisation Rules were framed. The order dated 02.02.2015 passed in L.P.A No. 251 of 2014 indicates that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 , a learned Single Judge of this Court had issued directions in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2003 titled "Ramesh Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand & Others" for formulating a policy for adjusting the persons who were working under different Departments, but by that time Rules were not framed. 11. The relevant portions of the order dated 02.02.2015 passed in L.P.A No. 251 of 2014 are extracted below: "At this stage, we have been informed by learned counsel for respondent-writ petitioner that in one of the cases being Ramesh Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in WP.(S) No. 5924 of 2003 wherein a direction was issued to the State to formulate a policy for adjusting the persons who were working in different departments in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 ] and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshri & Others [(2010) 9 S. C. C. 247] and when no policy was formulated, contempt was also filed against the State for compliance of the direction of the learned Single Judge, but needful has not been done till date. Learned counsel states that after preparation of the proposal, matter has been placed before the Cabinet, but no decision has been taken thereafter. Learned State counsel is directed to get the complete instruction in this regard before the next date of hearing. Copy of the order shall be provided to learned State counsel. " 12. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned State counsel would refer to note-sheet vide Annexure 10 at page 69 of the paper-book to show status of the deceased employee under the State. The learned State counsel has further contended that it is not sufficient that an employee was appointed on a permanent post his appointment should have been made in regular manner. 13. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned State counsel would refer to note-sheet vide Annexure 10 at page 69 of the paper-book to show status of the deceased employee under the State. The learned State counsel has further contended that it is not sufficient that an employee was appointed on a permanent post his appointment should have been made in regular manner. 13. The appointment of husband of the writ petitioner was neither illegal nor irregular and to avoid any claim on the basis of continuous service an artificial break of "one day" was engineered by the Department, a practice severely deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. In "Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Ltd." (2014) 11 SCC 85 deprecating introduction of artificial break in service, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus, "27. Very interestingly, the periods of service extends to close to 6 years save the artificial breaks made by the respondent with an oblique motive so as to retain the appellant as a temporary worker and deprive the appellant of his statutory right of permanent worker status. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent perpetuates "unfair labour practice" as defined under Section 2(ra) of the 10 Act, which is not permissible in view of Sections 25- T and 25-U of the 10 Act read with entry at Serial No. 10 in the Vth Schedule to the 10 Act regarding unfair labour practices. Section 2 (ra) reads thus; "2. (ra) 'unfair labour practice' means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule. " Further, Entry 10 of the Vth Schedule reads as under: "5. To discharge or dismiss workmen- * * * 10. To employ workmen as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen." 15. The husband of the writ petitioner was working on a sanctioned vacant post and the various terminologies used in the note-sheet or any other document of the Department on the basis of which Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned State counsel has contended that husband of the writ petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis is irrelevant. The husband of the writ petitioner was working on a sanctioned vacant post and the various terminologies used in the note-sheet or any other document of the Department on the basis of which Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned State counsel has contended that husband of the writ petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis is irrelevant. The bare facts - that the employee has continued to work for 20 years, there were several vacant posts against which he was working and the so-called break in service was artificial; are staring at the face of the State. The long continuance of husband of the writ petitioner must lead to a conclusion that there was a need for appointment on permanent basis and, infact, there were vacancies on permanent posts against which husband of the writ petitioner was working and, therefore, the artificial break of "one day" in the service would not come in the way of regularisation. 16. Now from the aforesaid, it is beyond any realm of doubt that the writ petitioner is eligible for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment. The hurdles sought to be introduced by the State on a plea that husband of the writ petitioner was not a permanent employee was just a technical objection which if accepted would have caused injustice and unimaginable hardship to the writ petitioner. A technical objection and that too which was created by the State itself can never serve as limitation on exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In ((Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Others v. V.R. Rudani & Others" (1989) 2 SCC 691 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; ((the judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226". 18. Having examined all relevant aspects of the matter, there is no doubt in my mind that the present review petition is bereft of substance. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226". 18. Having examined all relevant aspects of the matter, there is no doubt in my mind that the present review petition is bereft of substance. No plea akin to the grounds covered under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would be in substance the grounds for reviewing an order is made out. In the garb of a review petition, the State has sought a full fledged re-hearing of the writ petition like an appeal. The statutory provision of review which is available to every litigant has been misused by the State and the present review petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The State being a model employer is not acting in a fair and responsible manner and, in my view, contrary to its own avowed declaration under the State Litigation Policy. A review petition which was filed in July, 2018 remained in defects for about 2 ½ years - defects were removed on 17.02.2021; and in the meantime when the matter appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and the learned Registrar General on 26.07.2018 and 03.10.2018 respectively no one appeared on behalf of the State. It was only when a mentioning slip dated 15.02.2021 was tendered to the Court Master on 17.02.2021 with a reason for seeking early hearing that the contempt case is posted on 26.02.2021, this review petition has been listed today. And, this also cannot be over-looked that the order of the writ Court has not been complied by the respondent-authority presumably on a plea of pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal and the Review Petition. 19. In the aforesaid state of affairs, I am of a view that the present review petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost, however, I refrain from issuing any coercive order. Looking at the conduct of the respondents, I feel necessary to indicate that the time taken in litigation shall not be counted against the age of the applicant. 20. To conclude, I find no substance in the present review petition and, accordingly, Civil Review No. 43 of 2018 is dismissed.