Allowed

Solema Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 May 2019I.A.(Civil)/1591/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an application to correct typographical errors in a prior judgment regarding a pension dispute. The court mandated that references to the Police Department be changed to the Department of Superintendent of Taxes and the petitioner's father be changed to the petitioner's husband.

What did the court decide?

Correction of typographical errors regarding the relevant department and the petitioner's relationship status in the impugned order.

Solema Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010101282019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 1591/2019

¶5

1:SOLEMA BEGUM

¶6

W/O LATE MAKIBAR RAHMAN, R/O VILL. ADHIKARI, P.O. RAJGHAT, P.S. MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

¶10

2:THE COMM. OF TAXES ASSAM KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

3:THE CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM

¶12

4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DIST- DARRANG MANGALDAI ASSAM PIN- 784125

¶13

5:THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE DARRANG

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

DIST- DARRANG MANGALDAI ASSAM PIN- 784125

¶16

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES MANGALDAI DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78412

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 09-05-2019

¶23

Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate for State.

¶24

The present application has been filed for correcting certain typographical mistakes, which have crept in the order dated 29.04.2019 in WP(C) 7222/2018.

¶25

In the said order, in the sixth line in para No.3, it has been recorded as follows:

¶26

“However, on perusal of the minutes of the aforesaid SLC meeting, it does not reveal that the SLC had considered the availability of the vacancy in any other Departments, other than in Police Department in which the petitioner’s father was working.”

¶27

It has been submitted that the Department in which the petitioner’s husband was working was the “Department of Superintendent of Taxes” and not “Police Department” and it was not “petitioner’s father” who was working but the “petitioner’s husband.”

¶28

Accordingly, after hearing the parties, this application is allowed as the correction sought do not touch upon the merit of the case.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

Accordingly, the aforesaid paragraph shall now read as follows:

¶31

“However, on perusal of the minutes of the aforesaid SLC meeting, it does not reveal that the SLC had considered the availability of the vacancy in any other Departments, other than in the Department of Superintendent of Taxes in which the petitioner’s husband was working.”

¶32

The said order dated 29.04.2019, passed in WP(C) 7222/2018 stands accordingly corrected.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Solema Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solema Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

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

Smti Rekha Rani Chanda Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kumud Choudhury Vs Ashok Kumar Bhattarai

Sailen Dutta Das Vs the Assam University and 4 Ors.

Diganta Barkataki Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sashadhar Patowary Vs the Assam State Electricity Board and 3 Ors.

Smt. Runu Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.