Hadubandhu Nayak v. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Berhampur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.30434 of 2022 Sri Hadubandhu Nayak ....

Petitioner Mr.Manoj Kumar Nayak, Adv.

-versusThe Asst.Provident Commissioner &Anr.

....

Opposite Parties Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.

ORDER

20.12.2022 03.

I.A. No. 17222 of 2022

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. This is an application for correction of typographical error by typing the "opposite party No.1" instead of "DCDRC as opposite party No.3" in the order dated 07.12.2022.

3. It is submitted that the consumer complain filed by the petitioner is pending before the learned DCDRC. But, inadvertently in the order it has been mentioned as "opposite party No.1/Asst.

Provident Fund Commissioner" is to dispose of the case within two months instead of "opposite party No.3/DCDRC".

// 2 //

4. In view of such submission, the prayer for modification is allowed. Accordingly, the opposite party No.1/Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner be read as "opposite party No.3/DCDRC" wherever it occurs in the order.

5. With the aforesaid modification, the I.A stands disposed of.

6. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge LB