Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3894

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Madhuresh Prasad, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ
Dr. Niharika Ranjan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – 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

Accurate judicial records are vital; typographical errors can be corrected to reflect the intended court orders.

Headnote:(A) Relevant statutory provisions relating to employee pay scales and government notifications were implicated in matters of correction. Modifications were made to rectify typographical errors in judicial orders. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Clarifications regarding employment details and salary scales on specific dates were addressed, ensuring accuracy in previous judgments. Amendments were based on clear documentation from relevant authorities. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The modifications to judgment were prompted by the discovery of typographical errors that required amendments including adjustments in monetary figures and order dates impacting several cases. The judgments mentioned were initially passed on 28.07.2025 and were clarified and modified for certain petitioners and respondents.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed necessary modifications to ensure the accuracy of the judicial records and clarified the financial implications of the orders affecting the respective cases.

Issues: The main issues involved addressing typographical errors in judgments and their impact on understanding the correct positions in employment status and financial components.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that maintaining accuracy in judicial records is imperative and that typographical errors can be rectified to reflect the true intent of the court’s previous rulings.

Result: The judgment dated 28.07.2025 was modified and clarified as indicated without altering the remaining portions.

Table of Content
1. need for correction of typographical errors. (Para 1 , 2)
2. clarification of salary fixation process. (Para 3)
3. judgment modified and unaltered portions maintained. (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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document