IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9989 of 2009 SANJEEV KUMAR,SON OF SRI LALLAN RAI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAILWAY COLONY, KATHALBARI, Q.NO.L/42/G DARBHANGA, P.O. KATHALBARI, POLICE STATION L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT DARBHANGA---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA ,THORUGH GENERAL MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (P), E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 3. THE S.P.O. ( M & E), E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P), E.C. RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 6. THE DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER ( POWER), E.C. RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 7. THE CHIEF CREW CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL LOBBY, DARBHANGA 8. LALLAN RAIL SON OF LATE RAM PRIT RAI, R/O RAILWAY COLONY, KASHAL BARI Q.NO. L/42, DARBHANGA, P.O. KATHALBARI, P.S. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY DIST. DARBHANGA----RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Aditya Narain Singh For Union of India:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar 2 19.8.2009 Heard Mr. Aditya Narain Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Kumar for the Union of India. The present petitioner had filed O.A. No.676 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, which was disposed of by order dated 28.3.2008 by recording as under:- “Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he would like to file a representation before the concerned authority for sympathetic consideration of his case in view of the fact that the applicant no.1 has retired during pendency of this case. He seeks permission for withdrawal of this case. Permission is granted. - 2 - This O.A. stands disposed of as withdrawn by the applicants.” Counsel for the petitioner stated that as a matter of fact, this order does not reflect the correct position as the Counsel had not sought for withdrawal of the original application. Law is well settled that when it is stated that particular order does not reflect the correct position about what had transpired in the Court of law, the appropriate remedy is by way of approaching the same Court by filing appropriate application for review/recalling of such order. Therefore in the present case the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application for review/recalling the order dated 28.3.2008. If such an application is filed it shall be considered on its own merit. With the above observation, this application is disposed of. (P.K.Misra,C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) A.Kumar