Syed Affaquddin Ahmad v. Divisional Director And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No. 454 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8409 of 2015 ====================================================== Syed Affaquddin Ahmad, son of Late Dr. Rafiuddin Ahmad, Resident of Mohalla - Dariyapur Dumri House, Mahmood Shah Lane, P.S. - Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District and Town - Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. Divisional Director, Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Patna.

2. Assistant Manager "Sports" Tala Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Collieries Division, Jamadoba, Jharia.

3. General Manager, Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur.

4. Director Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur.

5. Divisional Manager Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur.

6. Manager, Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur. ... ... Respondents/Opp. Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Syed Affaquddin Ahmad ( In Person ) For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

14-03-2018 The present petition has been filed with a prayer to review/recall of order dated 25-08-2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8409 of 2015. The petitioner, who was appearing in person in main writ petition, after some argument had prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition for availing appropriate remedy. Fact remains that in a service dispute with Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 8409 of 2015. In the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., earlier he was appointed in an area, which falls within the jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand. Its hardly matters as to whether writ against Tata Iron and Steel Co. ltd. was

Patna High Court C. REV. No.454 of 2017(4) dt.14-03-2018 2/2 available or not, but fact remains that petitioner's service had come to an end while he was posted within the jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand, that too in the year 1998 itself and after a long gap in the year 2015, the petitioner had filed the said writ petition. However, since the petitioner was appearing in person, this Court had simply permitted him to withdraw the writ petition and now the present petition has been filed with a prayer to review/recall earlier order.

The Court is of the opinion that once an order is passed, there is no point for recalling of its earlier order. The review petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U