Disposed

Shyam Sundar Mallik v. State

Orissa HC18 Jul 2017OJC/13857/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Orissa High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging a service disciplinary order. While the petitioner did not challenge the quashing of the Tribunal order, he sought liberty to approach the appellate authority for a compassionate allowance due to his illness. The Court granted liberty to file an application under Rule 46 of the Orissa Pension Rules. The Court dir

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to apply for compassionate allowance under Rule 46 of the Orissa Pension Rules; direction to authority to decide within 3 weeks.

Shyam Sundar Mallik Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.

¶2

O.J.C. No.13857 of 1999

¶3

In the matter of application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

¶5

Sri Shyam Sundar Mallik …… Petitioner

¶6

Versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and others …… Opposite Parties

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s. A. Routray, P.K. Padhi & U.R. Bastia.

¶9

For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.S. Sahoo,

¶10

learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT:

¶13

THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA &

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing and judgment : 18.07.2017

¶16

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. N. Prasad, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

¶17

been filed wherein the order dated 15.3.1997 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No.800 of 1990 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of punishment imposed against the applicant/petitioner.

¶18

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner while working as a Constable under the administrative control of Superintendent of Police, Cuttack Sadar, has faced departmental proceeding on the allegation of bigamy. After his regular appointment, the departmental proceeding has been concluded after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the departmental

¶19

¶20

authority has passed the order of dismissal vide order dated 13.11.1986, which has been appealed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 3.6.1988 has reversed the order of punishment from dismissal to removal from service, which has been assailed by the petitioner before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, but the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of punishment on the ground of the charge of bigamy having been proved.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has submitted that he is not challenging the orders so far as it relates to the quashing of order of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the authority for imposing punishment of dismissal or removal from service. He has further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and as such, liberty may be given to him to make proper application before the authority for considering his case for compassionate allowance as provided under the provision of Rule46 of the Orissa Pension Rules.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State-opposite parties has fairly submitted that this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by making proper application for grant of compassionate allowance in the light of the provision as contained in Rule-46 of the Orissa Pension Rules, which contains a provision that a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity, provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is receiving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of pension or gratuity or both which would have been

¶23

¶24

admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension, which shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension admissible.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we hereby dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the competent authority raising his grievances regarding consideration of his case for grant of compassionate allowance in the light of the provision as contained in Rule-46 of the Orissa Pension Rules. If such representation would be filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall take a decision in accordance with law within reasonable period, preferably within period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

…..… …………… ….…..………….….

¶28

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

¶29

Dated the 18^th July, 2017/D. Aech

Shyam Sundar Mallik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Mallik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Benjamin Vs Union of India

Prafulla Nayak Vs State of Orissa

State of Orissa Vs Udayanath Majhi

State of Odisha Vs Niyati Mandal and Anr.

Trinath Ch.Nayak Vs State and Ors.

State and Ors. Vs Rama Krishna Das