Disposed

Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC11 Jan 2016WP(C)/255/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Chemistry Demonstrator, filed a writ petition seeking approval of appointment and salary release under the Grant-in-Aid Order 1994. Court disposed of the petition without deciding merits, directing the respondent to examine the plea citing prior judgments within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation with copies of relevant judgments; respondent to examine case within two weeks.

The petitioner who is working as Demonstrator in Chemistry (2nd post) in Biju Patnaik College on Science and Education, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda has filed this application seeking for a direction to opposite party nos.1 and 2 to approve his appointment and release his salary components as per the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Order 1994 with ef fect from his eligibility within a stipulated period.

Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance o f the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2003(I) OLR 91, which has be en confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4389 of 2006 and Chitaranjan Mohapatra and o thers v. State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.2617 of 2005 decided on 12.1.2011,

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the relie f sought for by the petitioner in view of the judgment passed in Prafulla Kumar Sahoo(supra) a nd Chitaranjan Mohapatra and others (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 two weeks from today highlighting his grievance along with authenticated Xerox copies of the decision of this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) and Chitaranjan Mohapatra and others (supra), in such event the said opposite party shall examine the case of the petitioner in the light of th e ratio decided in the aforesaid cases and if it is found that the case of the petitioner is s quarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law , as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of fili ng of such representation.

Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayanidhi Das Vs Gm,Uco Bank,Salt Lake,Kolkata

Chikun Behera Vs Ceoelect,Cesu,Bbsr

Sitaram Panda Vs State of Orissa

Sumitra Parida Vs Bse,Bajrakabati Roada,Cuttack

General Managera/Ee,Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs Biswabash Beuria

Dwarika Nath Vs State of Orissa