THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 26985 OF 1997 Date: 22.07.2010 Between: Godesi Durga Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26985 OF 1997 O R D E R : The petitioner herein joined the service of the 1st respondent- Visakhapatnam Steel Plant as Assistant Technician Trainee in the year 1988 and his services were regularised vide proceedings dated 13.11.1990. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the 2nd respondent’s proceedings dated 27.04.1994, whereunder the petitioner was removed from service alleging wilful and habitual absence from duty, is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioner made a representation dated 30.07.1997 and again another representation on 16.08.1997 requesting the Deputy Manager, (Personnel), Traffic and refractory zone to take him back into service. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 27.09.1997 before the Executive Director (Works) requesting him to consider his case for reinstatement. In view of the provisions of clause 33 of the Standing Order, which provides for review of cases after appeal, the petitioner’s representation was treated as a review petition and the same was under consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions stated that due to the pendency of the present writ petition the review petition could not be disposed of by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. There is a specific provision in the Standing Order which provides for review of cases by an authority higher than the appellate authority. Such review is admittedly pending before the 3rd respondent. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the review petition pending on his file following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 22.07.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd