Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3621

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Madhuresh Prasad, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ
DR. NIHARIKA RANJAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.C.T. 69 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 70 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 71 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 72 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 96 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 97 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 98 of 2025 | W.P.C.T. 99 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. N. Roy, Mr. B. Nandy
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, Mr. Kumaresh Dalal, Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay

Courts may correct typographical errors in judgments to ensure accurate representation and enforcement of the law.

Headnote:(A) Modifications - Clarifications related to typographical errors in previous judgments are permissible to rectify clerical mistakes and ensure precise interpretation of earlier orders. (Para 1)

(B) The judgment issued should accurately reflect the intentions of the legislature and any clerical errors must be addressed to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The present modification pertains to prior judgments concerning multiple judicial matters, correcting figures, dates, and parties involved in the judgments. Findings of court: Clarifications made regarding the correct amounts and other details to ensure clarity in judicial understanding and implementation.

Issues: The main issue was to rectify clerical errors in earlier judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts retain the authority to amend prior orders where clerical or typographical errors are evident to promote justice.

Result: The judgment dated 28.07.2025 has been modified to the extent indicated.

Table of Content
1. clarification of typographical errors (Para 1 , 2)
2. judgment modifications related to clerical errors (Para 3)
3. authority to amend prior orders (Para 4)

1. We are informed that typographical errors of omission and commission have unfortunately crept into the judgment of the Court dated 28.07.2025.

2. Under the circumstance matter is listed under the heading “To Be Mentioned” at the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner.

3. In view of the undisputed errors, pointed out, we allow the following Modifications:

 In appearance of parties the petitioner no. 1 Union of India be read as respondent no. 1 Union of India.

 O.A. No. 571 of 2024 be read as O.A. No. 517 of

2024;

O.A. No. 664 of 2024 be read as O.A. No. 1664 of

2023;

O.A. No. 1665 of 2024 be read as O.A. No. 1665 of 2023 in paragraph nos. 2 and 18 of judgment dated 28.07.2025.

 Rs. 6,700/- read as Rs. 67,700/- and Rs.

7,400/- be read as Rs. 74,000/- respectively in paragraph 4 of the judgment.

Clarifications:

 The petitioner in W.P.C.T. No. 71 of 2025 and W.P.C.T. No. 72 of 2025, was posted as Professor with joining pay of Rs. 1,34,500/-, which after earning annual increments reached a pay of Rs. 1,65,400/-, on 1^st January, 2023. Paragraph 5 and 13 of the judgment are accordingly clarified.

 In W.P.C.T. No. 71 of 2025 and W.P.C.T. No. 72 of 2025, the Office order notifying the correct fixation is dated 26.07.2023; and not

27.09.2023.

 In W.P.C.T. No. 71 of 2025 and W.P.C.T. No. 72 of 2025 the date of order issued with clear intention of making recovery is dated

25.08.2023; and not 05.03.2024.

4. The judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed in W.P.C.T No.

69 of 2025 and analogous cases stand modified/clarified limited to the extent indicated hereinabove. Remaining portions of the judgment dated 28.07.2025, remain unaltered.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document