Disposed

Girdhari Singh Barhath Son of Shri Madan Singh v. the Chief General Manager (I/C) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2025WMAP/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miscellaneous application seeking correction of a typographical error in an earlier writ petition order, so that only respondent No.1 (Indian Oil Corporation) must comply with the payment obligation. The court allowed the application and directed that the word 'respondents' be read as 'respondent No.1'.

What the court decided

AI extract

Girdhari Singh Barhath Son of Shri Madan Singh Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 316/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3932/2021

¶5

Girdhari Singh Barhath Son Of Shri Madan Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/o CISF, 8th Reserve Battalion, Jaipur, Rajasthan, presently posted as Constable-GD, CISF, 8th Reserve Battalion, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chief General Manager (I/C) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon, Assam.

¶9

Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarter, CGO Complex, Block No. 13, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.

¶10

Sr. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, 8th Battalion, Aamer, Jaipur- 302028.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Applicant(s) : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Sharma with Mr.Sanju Saini For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr.Vikas Kabra (through VC)

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

08/01/2025

¶16

The instant Misc. Application has been filed seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3932/2024 submitted by the petitioner-Girdhari Singh Barhath.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact the respondent No.1 is supposed to comply with the order passed by this Court. Counsel submits that the applicant has supported the

¶18

[WMAP-316/2024]

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

case of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, they are not supposed to make any payment to the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court. Counsel submits that due to typographical error in the order dated 11.07.2024, the word "respondents" has been typed instead of the word "respondent No.1". Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the order dated 11.07.2024 be modified.

¶21

Learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondent has no objection.

¶22

The application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein.

¶23

The word "respondents" in the order dated 11.07.2024 be read as "respondent No.1".

¶24

This order be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 11.07.2024.

¶25

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶26

Aayush Sharma /34

Girdhari Singh Barhath Son of Shri Madan Singh v. the Chief General Manager (I/C) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Girdhari Singh Barhath Son of Shri Madan Singh v. the Chief General Manager (I/C) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh S/O Jaitram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shawez Khan Son of Shri Mohammad Akbar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Son of Amarjeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Pravesh Kachavaha @ Piyush Kachavaha S/O Shri Rakesh Kachavaha, Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Gupta S/O Late Shri Badri Lal Gupta, Kalal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahdev Kaviya Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.