The court has the power to alter, recall, or change an order before it is signed and sealed, provided notice is given to the parties and they are permitted to make submissions.

JUDGMENT

1. The writ petition was taken up on 11th January, 2022 and upon hearing the respective Counsels appearing for the parties, the judgement/order was dictated in open Court upon setting aside the impugned order and directing the authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground taking into account the Rules/Regulations prevalent at the time of death of the employee.

2. The reliance was placed upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank & anr vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412, which also took note of the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571.

3. after transcribing the order, which was dictated in open Court, before we proceed to sign the same, it was noticed that the said order is not in tune with the correct proposition of law standing on that date and the judgement, which has been relied upon, was virtually distinguished in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court; even by a larger forum of three Judges.

4. We were skeptical whether we had any power to recall, alter or change the order dictated in open Court completely before the same is signed, but we get impetus to such notion and the power conferred upon the Court from a judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in case of Surendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in aIR 1954 SC 194. The identical situation arose before the allahabad High Court and the learned Judge, who faced such difficulty, referred the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench to answer such reference.

5. The Full Bench of allahabad High Court in case of Sangam Lal vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, allahabad & Ors. reported in aIR 1966 all 221 held that a judgement, which is dictated in open Court, can be changed completely before it is signed and sealed, but the learned Judge bears one thing in mind before he proceeds to exercise such act, the parties, who appeared before the Court, must be given an opportunity of being heard. The enlightening observations made by the Full Bench in paragraph 6 thereof is reproduced as under:

'6. In our view, this decision of the Supreme Court furnishes a complete answer to the question referred to us. It makes it clear that there is power of 'review' both in cases where judgment has been delivered but not signed and cases in which judgment has been delivered, signed and sealed; in the former case, the power to alter or amend or even to change comppletely is unlimited provided notice is given to the parties and they are heard before the proposed change is made, while in the latter case the power is limited and review is permitted only on very narrow grounds. We, are, therefore, of the view that Faulad v. State (1961 a.L.J.R. 244) was rightly decided and our answer to the question referred to us is as follows:-

'a judgment which has been orally dictated in open Court can be completely changed before it is signed and sealed, provided notice is given to all parties concerned and they are heard before the change is made''.

6. On the eve of a decade ago an identical situation arose in this Court when one of the Judges sitting singly was unable to trace the power to recall the order before it is signed and sealed and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench.

7. In case of Binod Kumar Toppo vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) CHN 299 (FB) consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court answered such reference in the following:

'11. In our opinion, the question referred to us has been already answered by the Supreme Court in the case Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (supra), which has been delivered even after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the amending act of 1976 and in the said decision, not only the amended provision of Rule 3 of Orde 20 has been taken note of but the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Su