The court has the inherent powers to review its orders to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner applied and appeared for being considered on the post of assistant teacher. Since the petitioner was found suitable and eligible for the said post, the committee of management resolved to appoint the petitioner as an assistant teacher on a substantive vacancy. The papers with regard to the petitioner’s appointment was forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who by its order dated 10.10.1994 accorded the approval. The petitioner alleged that inspite of the approval having been granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the petitioner was not paid the salary. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary. This Court, at the time when the writ petition was entertained, passed an order dated 11.10.1996, which is quoted hereunder :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

List this petition for admission on 30.10.96. On that date the learned standing counsel may obtain instructions for filing counter-affidavit as to why the petitioner’s salary has not been paid.”

2. From the order sheet it transpires that subsequently the petitioner filed an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be punished for contempt of court for not complying with the interim order of the Court dated 11.10.1996. This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India was eventually rejected by an order dated 27.5.1997. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 31.8.1999 and the following order was passed :

“The petitioner shall take steps to serve the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by registered post within two weeks. The office shall send notices, returnable at an early date.”

3. Thereafter, the order sheet indicates that the office made a report on 8.10.1999 stating therein that the petitioner had not complied with the order dated 31.8.1999 and had not taken any steps to serve the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The case was subsequently listed on 5.11.1999, on which date the Court allowed the writ petition. The order of the Court dated 5.11.1999 is quoted hereunder :

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition. Supplementary-affidavit filed today, be kept on the record of the writ petition.

The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay salary to the petitioner on month to month basis including arrears. The learned counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, vide order dated 24.8.96 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 in which the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari directed for payment of salary to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding the orders passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the Accounts Officer working in the office of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, is sitting tight over the salary bills of the petitioner. The Committee of Management, it is submitted by the learned counsel, has no objection and has in fact, submitted the salary bills of the petitioner. Despite stop order no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

In the above context, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay salary including arrears of the petitioner. The arrears of salary upto date may be paid within three months and thereafter, salary shall be paid regularly on month to month basis as and when it falls due and bill is submitted by the Committee of Management.”

4. This Court while allowing the writ petition directed the respondents to pay the salary including the arrears within three months and also continue to pay the salary month by month.

5. Subsequently, a Recall Application No. 81523 of 2000, dated 11.10.2000 was filed on behalf of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, the respondent