Bhubaneswar Das v. Union Of India

16.09.2021 Srimanta Sl. No. 01 Ct. No. 09 WPA/17108/2004 [Via Video Conference] Bhubaneswar Das -Vs.- Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Biplab Guha, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

Mrs. Chandreyi Alam, Adv.

...for the respondents.

On the mentioning on behalf of the petitioner the matter is listed today. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment this Court directed the respondent authorities to pay admissible dues, if any, to the petitioner. It is submitted by him that if no timeframe is fixed in respect of such direction the respondent authorities may cause indefinite delay to make payment of admissible dues, if any, to the petitioner. Therefore, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner has prayed for time bound direction in respect of payment of admissible dues. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate for the respondents that if any timeframe is fixed it should be adequate so that the respondent authorities can find out the old record of the petitioner for calculating admissible dues, if any.

It is needless to state that a ministerial or arithmetical mistake in the judgment can be altered. But the prayer made by the petitioner, if allowed, will mean rewriting of the said paragraph. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to change the main paragraph in the judgment as dictated in open Court

in presence of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner.

However, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to settle admissible dues, if any, of the petitioner within three months from this date so that the petitioner can get such dues, if any, within the aforesaid timeframe.

However, this order shall not be made part of the judgment. This order is made separately on the prayer on behalf of the petitioner.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)