IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1505 of 2010 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SONEPUR 3. THE DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS MANAGER, SONEPUR 4. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR-CUM-CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT PERSONAL MANAGER, SONEPUR Versus 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH THROUGH REGISTRAR 2. SUBHADRA JHA S/O NAGESHWAR JHA R/O MOHALLA- AAM GOLA, MALIGALI, P.S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2 23.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the Railways. In spite of service of copy of the petition on the learned counsel for the respondents nobody has appeared on their behalf. The prayer made in this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to make a minor correction/modification in the final order dated 22nd October, 2008 whereby C.W.J.C. No.6609 of 2006 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed on merits. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed by us today, it is not deemed necessary to issue notice to the respondent because in our view the modification will not affect him adversely. However, if the respondent ultimately feels aggrieved by our order to be passed today he will be at liberty to seek modification. In paragraph 14 of the judgment dated 22nd October, 2010 the Court recorded that counsel for the respondent no.2, an 2 affected employee, had informed that subsequent to the decision by the tribunal an amount of Rs. 21, 938/- has already been paid out of Rs.29,613/- which was deducted as penal rent from the retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount of Rs.21,938/- was paid to the concerned respondent not by way of refund of the deducted penal rent but on account of leave encashment dues and till the date of passing of the order dated 22nd October, 2008, nothing was paid to the concerned respondent out of penal rent deducted from his retiral benefits. This clarification, in our view, is not going to adversely affect the respondent who will be entitled to get refund of the deducted penal rent in terms of order of the Tribunal. Hence, the observation noted/made in paragraph 14 of the order dated 22nd October, 2008 is clarified in terms noticed above, as prayed on behalf of the petitioners. The application stands disposed of. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) Abhay Kumar