The Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the opposite party to examine the petitioner's grievance based on cited precedents within two months.
No decretal relief granted. Court directed opposite party to examine the case and pass orders if the petitioner's grievance is covered by cited precedents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WPC NO.3784 of 2016
11.03.2016
Heard Mr. P.K. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B. Senapati, learned Ad
dl.Govt. Advocate for the State.
The petitioner, who is working as Peon in Patitapaban Mohavidyalaya, Jarapada in the di
strict of Angul has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to rel
ease his salary components as per the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 within a stip
ulated 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 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 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.
Issue urgent copy as per Rules.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the relief in prior judgments applies to the petitioner's claim for salary components release.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶45
Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2003(I) OLR 91
Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2006Referred¶4
Chitaranjan Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶45
Chitaranjan Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2011 (I) OLR 732
Petitioner
State
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court