1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.4083/08 (DR/J) IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2444/1996 (Shiv Rattan Soni Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) Date of order : 24.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. R.N. Upadhyay, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel. The office objection with regard to filing of certified copy of the order dated 1.4.2008 is dispensed with in view of the fact that the original file is tagged along with the present application. Office is directed to register the application to its number. Heard on application for correction in the order passed by this Court on 1.4.2008. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.7.1996 was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.4.2008. However, at the time of hearing as per learned counsel 2 for the petitioner, inadvertently it was submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, therefore, at the time of final decision of the writ petition in the operative portion of the order, it is observed in the judgment dated 1.4.2008 that “.... The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner on the post of patwari till his superannuation and grant him all consequential benefits, so also finalize his pension case because as per information given by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation...” In the present application, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that inadvertently, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated before this Court that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation under the bonafide impression but in fact the petitioner will retire from service on 30.4.2009 after attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking modification in the operative portion of order dated 1.4.2008 with regard to reinstatement and to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner. Learned Govt. Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid position as the application is supported by affidavit given by learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of petitioner in the writ petition. 3 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the operative portion of the order dated 1.4.2008 is modified. Accordingly, it is ordered that if the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation then in place of operative portion of the order dated 1.4.2008, it shall be read that the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant him all consequential benefits as a result of quashing of impugned order dated 9.7.1996. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun