- (1.) Prayer in this application made by the petitioner is for modification of the order dated 31.07.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4181 of 2008 whereby the petitioner's writ application was allowed along with the reliefs claimed therein.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the writ application has been allowed but in absence of a specific order to the effect that the impugned order of the petitioner's superannuation dated 30.06.2008 is quashed, and further, in absence of any time frame within which the directions as contained in the order is to be complied with, the respondents are sitting over the matter and have not been complying with the directions contained therein. Learned counsel prays for a modification in the order of this Court to the effect that the impugned order of superannuation dated 30.06.2008 is quashed and also for fixing a time frame for compliance of the directions as contained in the order. Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties is present and submits that the respondents have filed an LPA against the aforementioned order of this Court and they would await the final decision in the LPA.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of specific order that the impugned order of superannuation is quashed, the respondents are not feeling obliged to comply with the directions contained in the order, appears to be misconceived. In paragraph 19 of the judgement, while disposing of the writ application, it was held that the Court had found merits in this writ application and accordingly, this writ application was allowed. It implies therefore that allowing the writ application means allowing the application together with reliefs claimed therein and since one of the reliefs claimed was for quashing the order of superannuation, it is implied that the impugned order of superannuation of the petitioner is quashed. As regards the contention of the petitioner that in absence of any time frame, the order has not been complied with, it is observed that the order needs to be read in proper perspective. Even if no time frame has been mentioned for compliance of the directions, the order implies that the directions contained therein should be carried out within a reasonable period. The modification sought for by the petitioner is not strictly necessary in my opinion, and therefore this application is disposed of with the above observation.;