Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32174 (RAJ)

GIRDHARI SINGH BARHATH SON OF SHRI MADAN SINGH v. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (I/C) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

WMAP/316/2024 · 2025-01-08

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 316/2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3932/2021 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. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief General Manager (I/C) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon, Assam. 2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarter, CGO Complex, Block No. 13, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 3. Sr. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, 8th Battalion, Aamer, Jaipur- 302028. ----Respondents For Applicant(s) : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Sharma with Mr.Sanju Saini For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr.Vikas Kabra (through VC) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/01/2025 1. 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. 2. 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 (2 of 2) [WMAP-316/2024] 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. 3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondent has no objection. 4. The application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein. 5. The word "respondents" in the order dated 11.07.2024 be read as "respondent No.1". 6. This order be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 11.07.2024. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /34