Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Feb 2019MCC/149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarth allowed a Miscellaneous Commnunication Case to correct an inadvertent clerical error in a preceding order. The court modified the referenced order to correct the petitioner's post from 'Sub Engineer' to the correct designation 'Assistant Draftsman'.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.01.2019 in WPS No.359 of 2019 modified to read 'Assistant Draftsman' instead of 'Sub Engineer'.

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCC NO.149 OF 2019

¶5

1. Dinesh Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Rajaram Pandey Aged About 58 Years Presently Working As Assistant Draftsman In The Offfice Of Executive Engineer P.W.D. Bilaspur Division No. 1,r/o Q.No. H-3, Behind Circuit House Vikas Nagar ,27 Kholi , Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG).

¶6

…Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department Mantralaya Public Station Rakhi .Tahsil Arang Naya Raipur District Raipur (CG).

¶9

2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Sirpur Bhawan Raipur (CG).

¶10

3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department Raipur District Raipur (CG).

¶11

4. Executive Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur ,division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

… Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶15

19.02.2019

¶16

1. The present MCC has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by this court in WPS No.359 of 2019.

¶17

2. The modification sought for is only to the post on which the petitioner was working which inadvertently in the order dated 18.01.2019 has been reflected as “Sub Engineer” whereas, it ought to had been “Assistant Draftsman”.

¶18

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in the writ petition the post of petitioner was clearly mentioned as “Assistant Draftsman” but due to inadvertence while disposing of the writ petition the post of petitioner has been reflected as “Sub Engineer”

¶19

4. The prayer is not opposed.

¶20

5. Accordingly, the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in WPS No.359 of 2019 shall stand modified to the extent that in the second line of paragraph-1 of the said order dated 18.01.2019, the post “Sub Engineer” shall be read as “Assistant Draftsman”.

¶21

6. Accordingly, the MCC stands allowed and disposed of.

¶22

7. Let copy of this order be made part of the records of WPS No.359 of 2019.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶25

inder

Dinesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotan Prasad Sharma Vs the Union of India

Ramesh Singh Vs Raigarh Regional Rural Bank and Ors.

Kunjram Karsh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgsarh

Ravindra Aware Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ram Shushil Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh