iv» ( C 1)) V) G ) Applicant Respondent No. 2 1 _VS_ Non Appiicant 1. Patitioner Regional Director, Employegs State Insurance Corporation Nanda Nagar, MP. Region, inciore (NLR) Dr. Shashi Bhushan Sao, S/o Late Shri Prabhu Ram Sao, aged about 51 years, presently working as Medicai Omcer, Employees State Insumnce Corporation, ESIC Hospital, Raipur, R,’o Shanti Nagar, Raipur(U.G.) Non Applicant 2. Respondents No 1 3 86 4 State of Madhya Pxadesh, thxough the Secretaxy, Labour Department, Vanabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MPV) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Labour .,-\L)eparunent, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Regional Dixector, Directorate Employees State Insurance Coxporation, Minisny of Labour, Chhattisgarh ,-Region, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2008 PASSED lN W.P.{S} No. 5259/2007 (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoui J.) Shxi Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the applicant. Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the non-applicant No. 1.’ Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel lawyer for the non-applicants No. 3 and 4. k . ORDER G (Passed on this 15th day of January, 2g09) The applicant, who was respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 5259/2007 (Dr. Shashi Bhushan Sao Vs. State of M.P. 8n others), has iiled this petition for recalling of the orderdated 9.9.2008. 2. Shn Pradeep baxena, learned counsel appearing tor the applicant submits that the writ petitioner in W PNo 5259/2007 had misled this Court While seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider his pending representation - 4K IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH : BILASPUR M.C.(C3.?l¢é. 3306 of 2008 10" ‘ ‘ {W 27 /£7 dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure P] 15). According to him, no representation is lying before the applicantjrespondent No.2 6 for decision. Thus, the dimction made to the respondent No.2 to decide the lepresentation may be recalled. Shri N. K. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant No.1/wrlt petitioner submits that it Was a mistake on the part of the writ petitioner. ln fact there was no 1 representation pending before the Iespondent No.2. ’I‘hus, the ‘respondent No.2’ may be deleted and in paxa 3, it may be substituted by ‘responclent No.1’. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts Situation of the case. the order dated 9.9.2008, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5259/ 2007 is modiiied to the extent that in the third line of para 3) of the order “respondent No.2” is substituted by “respondent No. 1". In View of the foregoing, this application is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. A copy of this order be placed on record in W.P.(S) No. 5259/ 2007, forming part ofthe order dt. 9,9.2008. .t, Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge k ‘