JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. The instant application has been filed for modification of order dated 24.06.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2005. 2. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das being assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2016 for quashing order of termination dated 19.10.2004 as also the appellate order dated 05.05.2005 and further for reinstatement on the post and capacity, the petitioner was working. It has been submitted that though the said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 24.06.2016 quashing the impugned orders and direction was issued to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment, however, the same appears to be apparent error in view of the conclusion arrived at by the Hon’ble Court at paragraphs 8 of the judgment dated 24.06.2016. In elaboration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the judgment dated 24.06.2016 in W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2005, this Hon’ble Court observed at paragraph 8 (iv) opined that “in the meantime, 11 years have been elapsed. No wilful purpose will be served to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service”, which ought to be deleted as even after quashing the impugned orders and declaring the same to be bad in law order of reinstatement ought to have been passed. Further, at Paragraph 8 (ii) it has been observed that “Although, the term prejudice has not been pleaded in the writ application, but certainly it is one of the infirmity, which has vitiated the proceeding., which may be deleted” In this regard, it has been submitted that that in that where proceeding is vitiated by any reasons/infirmities, in that eventualities the petitioner ought to have been given relief for reinstatement with full back wages. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of H.M.T Limited Vs. Labour Court, Ernakulam & Ors as reported in (1994) 2 SCC 38 ; and in the case of Devinder Singh vs Municipal Council, Sanaur as reported in AIR 2011 SC 2532 as also in the case of Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr as reported in 2001 Lab. Labour Court, Ernakulam & Ors as reported in (1994) 2 SCC 38 ; and in the case of Devinder Singh vs Municipal Council, Sanaur as reported in AIR 2011 SC 2532 as also in the case of Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr as reported in 2001 Lab. IC 646. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the modification is allowed to be carried out, the entire nature of impugned order shall change. It has further been submitted that in compliance of the direction given in impugned order, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013, but, considering all aspects of the matter and taking a lenient view only a fine of Rs. 50/- has been imposed upon the writ petitioner vide order dated 25/27.01.2018. 5. Before adverting to the prayer made in the instant application, it would be apposite to reproduce the eventualities, as mentioned in Rule 84 (k) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, in which, Civil Miscellaneous Petition lies. Rule 84 (k) is quoted herein below: 84(k) C.M.P: All civil miscellaneous petitions not specifically categorized or mentioned in this Chapter such as those relating to Restoration, modification or clarification, Vacation or Stay order etc. 6. Now coming to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that neither it is of the nature of restoration nor modification nor it is clarificatory in nature. Hence, the C.M.P is not entertainable. Furthermore, from perusal of order dated 24.06.2016, it appears that after considering all aspects of the matter, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the respondents-authorities for passing appropriate order on the quantum of punishment. In compliance thereof, the respondents-authorities vide order dated 25/27.01.2018 imposed only a fine of Rs. 50/-. Even if, the petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2005, she has remedy of appeal and if the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25/27.01.2018 passed on the quantum of punishment, she is at liberty to challenge the same before appropriate Court. So far the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case it does not apply. 7. So far the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case it does not apply. 7. For the reasons aforesaid facts, this C.M.P, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Petition dismissed.