1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M.C.A. (REVIEW) NO.314 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4338 OF 2008. (DHARAMDAS RUSHI MESHRAM....VS... M.S.R.T.C. THR. SECRETARY & ANR.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 18, 2010. 1. Heard Ms. Pallavi Mahashabde for the applicant and Mr. V.G. Wankhede for respondent No.2. 2. By this application the applicant/ appellant in Writ Petition No.4338/2008 seeks review of the order dated 16th February, 2009 dismissing Writ Petition No.4338/2008. The petitioner was conductor serving with respondent No.1. He was dismissed from service on the ground that while he was functioning as a conductor in Bus No.MTB 5344 the bus was checked and 21 passengers were found without ticket, out of them the applicant had recovered fare from seven passengers and failed to issue tickets. The dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court and the Labour Court set aside the dismissal of the applicant from service and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages. Revision preferred by the respondent before the Industrial Court was allowed. Aggrieved thereby the applicant preferred Writ Petition bearing No.3915/2001 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 11th July, 2001. Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2005 preferred by the applicant was dismissed by this Court by order dated 5th December, 2005. 2 3. The petitioner made representation dated 14.02.2006 to take him back in service on the basis of order passed by the Apex Court dated 03.12.2005 in some other matter. Respondent No.1 by communication dated 25th June, 2007 communicated to the applicant that he was not entitled to settle the matter since circular dated 26.09.2006 was not applicable. 4. The applicant filed above Writ Petition No.4338/2008 challenging the said communication which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2009, which is sought to be reviewed. 5. Ms. Mahashabde, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered on 03.12.2005 and circular dated 26.09.2009 is squarely applicable to the case of the applicant. Ms. Mahashabde placed reliance on Clause 4 of the said circular and submitted that since the case of the applicant was pending on 03.12.2005 the applicant was entitled to ask for settlement with respondent No.1. 6. Mr. Wankhede for the respondent submitted that the case of the applicant is not covered by circular dated 26.09.2006 since on the date on which the representation was made by the applicant no appeal was pending before any authority and therefore Clause 4 of the circular dated 26.09.2006 is not attracted. Mr. Wankhede further submitted that the scope of review is very limited and as such no case is made out for interference by this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered view that no case has been made out for review of the order passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition. No doubt, circular dated 26.09.2006 was issued pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2005 passed by the Apex Court in some other matter. The fact remains that as on the date of issuance of circular dated 26.09.2006, no appeal or other proceedings were pending in terms of 3 clause 4 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant is not attracted. In our considered opinion the case of the applicant had to be considered in terms of circular dated 26.09.2006 but the mere fact that Letters Patent Appeal filed by the applicant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge was pending on 03.12.2005, the same does not give any right to the applicant to settle the matter with the respondent. 8. In view of above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record to grant review. Hence, the application is dismissed but with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE RR.