Arakshita Naik v. State

O.J.C. No. 7482 of 1994
12.04.2016

 Mr. B. Jena on behalf of Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K.
 Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department.

 The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking for a direction to opposite party
 no.4 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Duftary and grant all consequential be
nefits as due and admissible to him.

 Mr. B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the time the petitioner
filed the writ application, he was 43 years and in the meantime, he must have retired from ser
vice on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner claims his promotional benefits. T
herefore, he seeks for a direction to the authority to consider his case, if his claim subsist
s.

 Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department s
ubmits that since the petitioner has already superannuated from service, any promotional benef
it as claimed in the writ application cannot be granted to him.

 Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after goin
g through the records, it appears that by the time the writ petition was filed, the petitioner
 was 43 years and in the meantime, the petitioner must have retired from his service on attain
ing the age of superannuation. In any case, if the claim of the petitioner subsists, this Cour
t directs opposite party no.4 to consider the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possi
ble in accordance with law.

• With the above observation and direction, the writ application is disposed of.