Dharamvir Singh v. Shri Rajiv Mehrishi
Background
The appellant joined government service in 1981 and was promoted to Draughtsman in 1983. A 1994 policy amendment entitled him to a revised pay-scale once he completed a minimum period of service in that cadre. He went to the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) to claim this benefit, and won, but due to a typographical slip, the High Court's order (and a later review order correcting it) both mistakenly recorded the year he completed the qualifying service as "1997" instead of the correct "1987." When the government did not revise his pay-scale from 1987, he filed a contempt petition, which the High Court dismissed because, strictly read, its own order (with the wrong year) had not technically been violated.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court was technically right to dismiss the contempt petition, since no contempt occurs merely because of an ambiguous or erroneous order. However, the Court found it apparent from the record that both High Court orders had simply made the same typographical error, and that the appellant was clearly entitled to the revised pay-scale from 1987, not 1997. Rather than send the appellant back through more litigation to fix a clerical mistake, the Court partly allowed the appeal directly, ordering the pay-scale to be revised from 19 August 1987, with arrears plus 6% interest to be paid within three months.
Lesson Learnt
A dismissal of a contempt petition on a technicality does not mean the underlying entitlement is lost. Where the record makes an obvious clerical error plain, the Supreme Court can and will correct it directly and grant the substantive relief, rather than leaving a citizen to be denied a benefit because of someone else's typo.