^j IN THE W^ CO^ii^WiWWiis^^^-'BSLASPVR M; C.C.No. ^ :.1 ;/';::1.':1:./' OE^20il:„ 1 ;' ^_:'^y:^rL ARISmGPUTOFTHEORDER.DT.3l/2/2011PASSEDIN PETITIONER 7 '^ Slngl® ^J/i/. ^y^: /.^ ^//.€' ///<' w' RB^IPONDENTS WPSS N0. 7408/2009 BRIJMOHAN NETAM, AGED-62YEARS, S/0 SHRI PANCH RAM NETAM, RETIRED ASSISTANT GRADE -II, FROM 0/0 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION, MAHASAMUND, DISTRI.CT - MAHASAMUND (C. G.) R/Q OPPOSrTE; TRIBAL HOSTEL, JHALAP, TEH.; 85 DISTRICT - MAHASAMUND (G. G.) VERSUS ^ S^Ng y^^^ 3. ^ STATEOF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE, MANTRALAYA, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. THE SUPRINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE, RAIPUR CIRCLE, RAIPUR (C. G.) THE BXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION, MAHASAMUND, DISTRICT-MAHASAMUND (C. G.) THEJOINTDIRECTOR, TREASURY, ACCOUNT AND PENSION, 'RAIPUR DIVISION, RAIPUR(C. ©.) •1"-.< [FIGAT APPUCATlONFOR3»aC)te^C;ATION/CORRECtlONlN ORDER.DT. 21/2/2011 ^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS M.C.C. No.l67of2011 Brijmohan Netam. VERSUS StateofChhattisgarh& Others. APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATIQN/CORRECTION IN ORDER DT.21/2/2011 SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: Shri R.K.Keshanvani, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer fbr tiie State/respQiidenfs. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 29th day ofMarch, 2011) 1. This is an application for correction in the order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure M/l) passed in W.P.(8) No. 7408/2009, {Brijmohan Netam v.State ofChhattisgarh &0thers)^v/hichhas inadvertently crept in fhe order. According to learaed eounsel appearing for fhe petitioner, inthe third line ofpara 7 offhe order, the word 'excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner9 has been typed inadvertently, which infact, should have been 'excessr payment made to the petitioner.' 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the other side does not controvert Ifae above submission. 3. In view ofthe above, it is ordered Ifaat in the fliird line ofpara 7 of the order dated 21.02.2011, theword 'excess payment made to the husband oftfie petitioner' may be read as 'excess payment made to the petitioner'. 4. Accordingly, this application is disppsed of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit 'n