Single judge order allowing an interim application to correct a typographical error in a previous judgment and order regarding petitioner's seniority status relative to respondent No. 8.
IA disposed of; paragraph 21 of the prior order to be read as respondent No. 8 cannot be treated as senior to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC020001622024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/46/2024
TARACHU FITHU S/O MESUSU FITHU
JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER
KOHIMA NAGALAND
3:THE SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND
4:THE DIRECTOR
URBAN DEVELOPMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
WORKS AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND
6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
Page No.# 2/3
WORKS AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND
7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
P AND AR DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND
8:SMTI. TEMJENRENLA
ASST. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT KOHIMA NAGALAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : I. APOK PONGENER
Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
08-04-2024
The present application is filed for correction of an typographical error at paragraph No. 21 of the judgment and order dated 08.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 71(K)/2010.
In the paragraph No. 21 of the said judgment and order dated the following sentence at line No. 16 was written:
“In any of the event, the petitioner cannot be treated as senior to the respondent No. 8.”
However, the said sentence ought to have been written as “in any of the event, the respondent No. 8 cannot be treated as Senor to the petitioner” inasmuch as a declaration was made in the said judgment and order to the effect that the petitioner is Senior to respondent No. 8.
Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the present application stands allowed and it is provided that the line at paragraph No. 21 be read as “ in any of the event, the respondent No. 8 cannot be treated as Senior to the petitioner”.
IA stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Tarachu Fithu
Joint Director, Dept. of Urban Development
State of Nagaland
Chief Secretary
Secretary, Urban Development
Smti. Temjenrenla
Arun Dev Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
