AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this review petition for reviewing/recalling of order dated 06.04.2026 in W.P.No.6137/2016.
Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that certain facts escaped attention of this Court while deciding writ petition. Application for compassionate appointed was under consideration with respondents-department on 30.04.2020. Since application was filed on time and there was no delay on part of petitioner, therefore, writ petition ought to have been considered and allowed. It is submitted that documents were already available on record by way of filing rejoinder. Material documents were in possession of petitioner's elder brother, who was suffering from depression. Despite exercise of due diligence, documents were not made available to petitioner and to his brother and mother, therefore, documents could not be placed on record of prior proceedings in Court. Documents go to root of the matter. Case of compassionate appointment was closed as consent affidavit was not submitted to accept lumpsum amount of Rs.1 Lakh. Court dismissed the writ petition on ground that there is absolute silence and failure to file application from 2009 to 2014. It is submitted that said facts are factually incorrect. It is further submitted that earlier rejection of petitioner's case in the year 2015 was arbitrary and unlawful. Counsel for petitioner submitted that discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise the due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when order was passed is good ground for reviewing the order. In view of aforesaid submissions, prayer is made for review of order.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
Writ Petition filed by petitioner was dismissed as Court was considering prayer for grant of compassionate appointment after long lapse of time. Death took place in the year 2009 and consideration for grant of compassionate appointment was in the year 2026. Counsel for petitioner is unable to apprise the Court of action taken by him between 2009 to 2014. Merely change of counsel will not give a ground for entertaining review petition. It is not a case that facts were newly discovered. Facts were in knowledge but not produced or argued cannot be a ground of review. No purpose will be served in entertaining a cause which itself has become infructuous due to long lapse of time.
Review petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.