- (1.) Hears Sri K.A. Qayyum, learned Counsel for applicant and perused the record.
(2.) The application has been filed seeking recall of my order dated 17.1.2011 on the ground that this case was shown in additional cause list at sl. No. 7 and after lunch, in the first round learned Counsel for petitioner was present but respondents Counsel was absent. In the second round he was engaged in Court No. 50 and by the time he could reach this Court, the order was passed. He made a mention at 4.00 p.m. but the Court instructed him to file recall application. Order sheet, however, shows that this case was listed in the category of "old cases" on 7.1.2011when learned Counsel for petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of illness whereafter it was directed to be placed on 10.1.2011, on which date the Court passed the following order : "List has been revised. No one appears to press the petition. Place this petition on 13.1.2011 before the appropriate Court." On 13.1.2011, on the request of learned Counsel for petitioner, it was fixed for 17.1.2011 as is evident from following : "As prayed, put up on 17.9.2011."
(3.) On 17.1.2011, learned Counsel for petitioner did not appear. The matter was decided on merits. However, today also, I gave full opportunity to learned Counsel for applicant to point out any error in my order dated 17.1.2011, which I have passed after considering claim of petitioner on merits. Learned Counsel for petitioner could not point out any error so far as exposition of law is concerned, but what he says is that there is a Government Order dated 8.9.2010 communicating decision of Government to various statutory bodies and public enterprises that a decision has been taken by Government for regularization of all daily wage employees engaged before 20.6.1991.;