Disposed

Kabita Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2016WP(C)/3781/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by Lady Attendant seeking salary components under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Without adjudicating merits, the court directed representatives to submit specific representations and authenticated copies of cited precedents within two weeks. If the case is covered by established ratios, the opposite party must examine and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

No immediate relief granted; petitioner directed to submit representations before representative to examine merits within two weeks.

The petitioner, who is working as a Lady Attendant in Patitapaban Mohavidyalaya, Jarapa da in the district of Angul has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the opposite pa rties to release her salary components as per the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 w ithin a stipulated period.

Mr. P.K. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment decided by this Court in Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2003(I) OLR 91, which has been confirmed by the ape x Court in Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2006 and Chitaranjan Mohapatra and others v. State of Oris sa and others, 2011 (I) OLR 732.

Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate states that the relief sought f or by the petitioner in view of the judgment passed in Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) and Chitar anjan Mohapatra and others (supra) is not applicable to the present case. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Co urt disposes of the writ petition with an observation that in case the petitioner files a repr esentation before opposite party no.1 within a period of two weeks from today highlighting her 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 the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases and if it is found that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiousl y as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of such repres entation.

Kabita Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabita Sahu v. State of Odisha

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

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Ku Sahu Vs Registrar,Co-Operative Societies,Bbsr

Manoj Ku.Pati Vs Secy.Board of Secondary Education

Dr Pradyumna Tripathy Vs Ouat,Bbsr

Gb of Anchalika Ju.College Vs State of Odisha

Dhaneswar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Manamohan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa