Disposed

Ajay Ku Das v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC10 Aug 2016WP(C)/10414/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by a Junior Clerk seeking release of Grant-in-Aid. The bench declined to decide merits on merits but directed the opposite party to examine the case based on a specific precedent within three weeks and decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation; opposite party to examine case on specific precedent and pass orders within four months.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is working as a Junio r Clerk in Agarpada Degree College, Agarpada, in the district Bhadrak with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to release the Grant-in-Aid in his favour with effect from 01.06.1994 wit hin a stipulated period.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of t he petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Pr afulla Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and Others reported in 2003(I) OLR 91, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2006.

Mr. S. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the relief sough t for by the petitioner in view of the judgment passed in Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (Supra) is not applicable to the present case.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion with regard to merits of the case, this Court disposes of this writ petition with an observation that in case the petit ioner files representation before opposite party no. 1 within a period of three weeks from tod ay highlighting all her grievance along with an authenticated Xerox copy of the decision of th is Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and Others reported in 2003( I) OLR 91, in such event the said opposite party shall examine the case of the petitioner in t he light of the ratio decided in the aforesaid case and if it is found that the case of the pe titioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, shall pass necessary orders in accorda nce with law as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation.

Ajay Ku Das v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Ku Das v. State of Orissa

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

Pitambar Vs Santi

M.C. of Panchayat High School,Budhabahal,Bolangir Vs State of Odisha

Sanghamitra Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Bhubaneswar School Vs Secy.,Health and F.W.

Pradeep Ku.Satpathy Vs State of Odisha

State of Orissa Vs Sarada Kanta Routray