S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION No.137/2014 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6141/2014 Narendra Kumar Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Order dated 25/11/2014 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: ORDER
:: S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION No.137/2014. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6141/2014 Narendra Kumar Vs. L.I.C. of India & Ors. Date of Order ::::
25. h November, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr. K.K. Shah, for the review-petitioner. -- BY THE COURT:
1. The review-petitioner has preferred this review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of order dated 04.09.2014 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of after hearing the petitioner, who was present in person on that date.
2. The grounds alleged in the review petition are that there were not disputed question of facts involved in the writ petition and the petitioner was not appointed on contract basis but was appointed in terms of LIC of India (Recruitment of S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION No.137/2014 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6141/2014 Narendra Kumar Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Order dated 25/11/2014 2/2 Apprentice Development Officers) Regulations, 1999. However, in the order dated 04.09.2014 it has wrongly been mentioned that the petitioner was working on contract basis and on account of non-fulfillment of the required revenue target, his services were terminated.
4. In the review petition, the petitioner himself has averred that in compliance of the order dated 04.09.2014, of which the review is sought, he filed a representation before the second respondent i.e. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC, Jodhpur, however, no heed has not been paid to the same.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this Court does not find any justifiable grounds or reasons to review the order dated 04.09.2014 as in pursuance to the order the petitioner has already filed his representation to the concerned authority, and it is for the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the same. The direction in the order is only to this effect. There is no error in the said order, which calls for a review.
6. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.