PARMANAND LAL Vs. SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment dated January 11, 2013 we had allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the following terms:-

(2.) IT would be relevant to note paragraphs 28 and 33 of our judgment dated January 11, 2013, which read as under:-

(3.) IT is argued by the counsel appearing for the respondents/review applicant that we had incorrectly recorded in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale was regularized on March 14, 1991. Counsel argues that vide order dated July 05, 1990 the petitioner was promoted in the grade of Senior Time Scale (DET) on ad-hoc basis, (temporarily) transferred to the post of AGM (RE), New Delhi and posted to RRCC, New Delhi and it was temporary transfer of the petitioner to the post of AGM (RE), New Delhi which was regularized vide order dated March 14, 1991 and not the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale. Counsel further argues paragraph 33 which forms the basis of conclusion arrived by us in the judgment dated January 11, 2013 is a sequitur to paragraph 28, which paragraph incorrectly records that the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale was regularized on March 14, 1991. Counsel argues that since a material error has crept in the judgment dated January 11, 2013 the same requires to be reviewed.