Disposed

Harshamani Dash v. Secy,Scl and Mass Edu

Orissa HC4 Aug 2015WP(C)/360/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding family pension and T.I. benefits. Without deciding on merits, it granted liberty for the petitioner to file a detailed representation supported by documents and prior judgments. The authority was directed to decide within eight weeks whether to release benefits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation; authority directed to decide benefit entitlement within eight weeks.

12. 04.08.2015 At the outset it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the cause title of design ation of opposite party no.2 because the post D.I. of Schools is now being designated as Block Education Officer.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the opposite par ties to release benefit of family pension and T.I. in favour of the petitioner on the ground t hat the entitlement of the petitioner for getting benefit has already been decided by this Cou rt in the case of Subarna Dibya and others vs- State of Orissa and others reported in 2005 (I) OLR 168 and in view thereof the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner will be looked into by the authority and if at all the case of the petitione r will come under the parameter of the ratio decided by this Court in the case of Subarna Diby a and others vs- State of Orissa and others reported in 2005 (I) OLR 168, consequential benefi ts shall be released in favour of the petitioner without any further delay.

On such submission on behalf of the parties and without going into the merit of this cas e, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detail represen tation giving therein all the facts supported by relevant documents and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Subarna Dibya and others vs- State of Orissa and others reported in 2005 (I) OLR 168 within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this orde r.

The concerned opposite party shall take a decision on the basis of the fact which shall be produced by the petition as indicated hereinabove and if at all the case of the petitioner will come under the parameter of the judgment rendered in the case of Subarna Dibya and others vs- State of Orissa and others reported in 2005 (I) OLR 168, consequential benefit shall be r eleased in favour of the petitioner if there is no other legal impediment within a reasonable period preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. If, however, the authority will come to conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled t o be given the said benefit on any ground whatsoever, same shall be communicated to the petiti oner by passing a reasoned order within the period aforesaid. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Harshamani Dash v. Secy,Scl and Mass Edu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshamani Dash v. Secy,Scl and Mass Edu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Languli Mallick Vs Collector,Cuttack

Subhasmita Samal Vs Collector,Dhenkanal

Baijayanti Pradhan Vs Adm,Ganjam

Kailash Ch.Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Somanath Panda Vs State

Mukesh Kumar Das Vs State