IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13124 of 2006 SITA RAM MISHRA, SON OF LATE VIDYANAND MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BARHA, POLICE STATION- BENIPATTI, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. ........ PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, HANDLOOM AND SERICULTURE, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFT CORPORATION UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. .....RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 25.04.2011 Heard Sri Deo Nath Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned A.C. to Govt. Advocate No. 5, who appears on behalf of respondent/State. The petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition in sum and substance has made a prayer for review/recall of an order passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 7470 of 2003, which was dismissed on 11.08.2004. For the similar relief the petitioner had approached this court and this court had rejected the claim. It is appropriate to quote the order passed by this court on 11.08.2004 in C.W.J.C. No. 7470 of 2003 which is as follows: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner though retired from service of Bihar Handloom Corporation seeks a direction to the State Govt. for payment of pension for the service rendered by him in the State Govt. before it was absorbed in the 2 Corporation. The case of the petitioner appears to be fully covered by the decisions in the case of Ramanand Prasad. He too claimed the same reliefs in similar set of facts and circumstances. His claim for pension was rejected by order passed by a learned single Judge in CWJC No. 6574 of 2003. Against that order he preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No. 973 of 2003 which too was dismissed by a reasoned order by a bench of this court on 25.11.2003. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that in this case he is raising some other points that were not raised and were therefore not considered in the case of Ramanand Prasad. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had completed fifteen years service in the State Govt. and hence regardless of absorption of his service by the Corporation he was entitled to pension from the State Govt. in terms of the Pension Rules. I do no think that even on this issue there is any dis-similarity between the case of the petitioner and the claim of Ramanand Prasad. From the division bench judgment, it appears that Ramanand Prasad too had served in the Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar from 1.4.1963 to 21.9.1975 before his service was transferred to the Corporation. For the reasons discussed above, no relief can 3 be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed.” Again the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the same relief. In this case the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 2005. It was submitted that in similar circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a favourable order, and as such, it was prayed that the writ petition may be allowed in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The court is of the opinion that once the writ petition for same relief was rejected by a reasoned order this court may not review or recall earlier order. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)