Partly allowed

Sk.Ismail v. Director,Markets

Orissa HC8 Mar 2017WP(C)/3766/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a superannuated market committee supervisor, sought relief based on a resolution enhancing retirement age to 60. Court followed a precedent allowing continued service to age 60 and disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file grievances before the authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file appropriate application before respondent 3 within fifteen days for consideration on merits.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party no.3. In view of the order this Court proposes to pass, it is not expedient to issue notice to the private opposite party nos.1, 2 and 4.

The present petitioner is working as Supervisor in the office of Regulated Mar ket Committee (R.M.C.), Jajpur. As per date of birth, he has been superannuated on 28.02.2017 by the Secretary, RMC, Jajpur. However, it is contended that in the meantime, the age of retir ement of Government servant has been enhanced from 58 to 60 as per the Finance Department Reso lution dated 28.06.2014.

In a similar case, another employee of the RMC, namely, Mrutyunjaya Mishra, ap proached the Court in W.P.(C) No.25268/2014, which was disposed of by a bench of this Court on 24.12.2014, wherein the General Manager, OSAM Board, Bhubaneswar and ADM-cum-Chairman, RMC, J atni were directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11 .2014 and 17.12.2014.

After hearing the petitioner in person and after taking into consideration the different service rules, the General Manager, OSAM Board, Bhubaneswar allowed the representat ion and directed that the petitioner in the aforesaid case, namely, Mrutyunjaya Mishra should be continued to remain in service till the age of 60.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the opposite party no.3 within fifteen days ventilating his grievances and annexing certified copy of this order and a copy of the br ief. On such event, the opposite party no.3 shall consider his application and dispose of the same on merit, after affording reasonable opportunity

Sk.Ismail v. Director,Markets

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk.Ismail v. Director,Markets

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

Mayadhar Sethy Vs State of Orissa

Bichitra Kumar Behera Vs Chief Executive Officer,Nesco Ltd.

Prasanna Ku.Pati Vs State of Orissa

Saroj Ku.Nayak Vs the Asst.Manager,Cesu

Dillip Ku.Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Ku.Parija Vs State of Odisha