Allowed

Managing Director v. Pratap Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2026MCC/314/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandl Board officials sought correction of a typographical error in a writ judgment that wrongly recorded the petitioner's discharge date as 16.11.2021 instead of 16.11.2022. The court found the error apparent on the face of the record and allowed the MCC, correcting only the date.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.07.2025 in WPS No. 4023/2023 modified to read '16.11.2022' in place of '16.11.2021' in paragraph 6.

Managing Director Vs Pratap Sahu — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶3

2026:CGHC:15186

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCC No. 314 of 2026

¶7

1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur District- Raipur (Cg)

¶8

2 - Joint Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board, Divisional Officer, Raipur District- Raipur (Cg)

¶9

3 - Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gandai, District KhairagarhChhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Applicants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Pratap Sahu S/o Late Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Sub Inspector At Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gandai, Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh-ChhuikhadanGandai, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, DistrictRaipur (Cg)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Applicants : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General

¶16

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

02/04/2026

¶19

This Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) has been filed by the applicants seeking modification of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 4023/2023.

¶20

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) had preferred WPS No. 4023/2023 seeking quashment of the order dated 02.02.2023 and for grant of full salary and consequential service benefits during the period of suspension. This Court, vide order dated 23.07.2025, partly allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioner therein would be entitled to all consequential service benefits from the date of his discharge in the criminal revision proceedings.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that while passing the aforesaid order, this Court, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, has mentioned the date of discharge of the petitioner as “16.11.2021”, whereas in fact the petitioner was discharged vide order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 881/2022. It is submitted that the correct date of discharge has also been noticed in paragraph 3 of the judgment; however, due to a typographical error, an incorrect date has crept into the operative portion. It is further submitted that the said error is apparent on the face of the record and requires correction to avoid any ambiguity in implementation of the order. Learned counsel submits that even the department has acknowledged the correct date and has issued order dated 03.03.2026 granting benefits to the petitioner from 16.11.2022. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 23.07.2025 be modified to the limited extent of correcting the date from “16.11.2021” to “16.11.2022”.

¶23

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

¶25

Upon perusal of the order dated 23.07.2025, it is evident that this Court had taken note of the correct date of discharge of the petitioner as 16.11.2022 in the body of the judgment. However, in paragraph 6 of the operative portion, the said date has inadvertently been mentioned as 16.11.2021. The said discrepancy is clearly a typographical error apparent on the face of the record. The correction sought does not entail any reappreciation of the matter on merits but is only for rectification of an inadvertent mistake.

¶26

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present MCC deserves to be allowed .

¶27

Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The order dated 23.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 4023/2023 is modified to the limited extent that the date “16.11.2021” mentioned in paragraph 6 of the order shall be read as “16.11.2022”.

¶28

It is made clear that except for the aforesaid modification, the rest of the order shall remain unaltered.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶31

Shayna

¶32

JUDGE

Managing Director v. Pratap Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director v. Pratap Sahu

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

Surender Singh Chawla Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Supply Distribution Company

Dev Kumar Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shatrughan Lal Dhirhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Girdhari Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Achinta Bhowmik Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Lateshwari Karsh Vs State of Chhattisgarh