Disposed

Biswaprakash Mishra v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC16 May 2017WP(C)/7763/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition concerning the non-payment of retirement benefits, arrear salary, and PF dues by the employer. The court directed the respondent to decide on pending representations as per the cited precedent and grant payment within a month if claims were valid.

What did the court decide?

Opposite party to decide on representation within three months; if petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,65,088/- or other amount, it must be paid within one month of decision.

4. 16.05.2017 Heard Mr.S.Ghosh, learned counsel for the peti tioner, Mr.A.K.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr.B.S.Sahoo , learned counsel for the opposite party no.4. 2. The action of the opposite parties in not releasing the retirement ben efit along with arrear salary and P.F. dues of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into service in 1972 as a Supervisor under the erstwhile Bolangir Co-operative Land Developme nt Bank now renamed as Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank (CARD Bank). All s uch banks are operating under the administrative control of OSCARD Bank and while continuing i n the cadre of the district CARD Banks, the petitioner was allowed to be inducted to the commo n cadre of OSCARD Bank as Field Officer on 1.3.2004. Thereafter, he was allowed to remain in-c harge as Secretary of CARD Bank, Bolangir and then transferred to Nuapada CARD Bank as a Cadre Field Officer. On 5.9.2007, he was promoted as Grade-III Sectetary on 30.7.2007. For the peri od 2004 to 2006, CARD Bank, Bolangir1 has not paid the dues of the petitioner to the tune of R s.1,21,081/- towards salary and Rs.26,670/- towards PF dues for which he made several represen tations to opposite party no.4. While the matter stood thus, in pursuance of the Model VRS Sch eme, the petitioner applied for VRS, which was duly accepted on 26.9.2011 and the petitioner w as allowed to retire on 30.9.2011 (AN). He further submitted that over and above the arrear du es towards salary for the period of 2004-2006, an amount of Rs.2,87,331/- towards salary for t he period February, 2010 to 30.9.2011 along with PF dues to the tune of Rs.1,01,770/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs.5,65,088/- including the cash security of Rs.14,731/- for which the petiti oner has also made another representation on 3.9.2013 (Annexure-6), which is still pending con sideration.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar cir cumstance, an employee approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19437 of 2009, which has been dispo sed of by learned Single Judge and the same has been confirmed by this Court in W.A. No.364 of 2011 (Orissa State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited Versus- Sri Sa chindra Harpal and others). Not only this but also the said order has also been confirmed by t he Honble Supreme Court. He prays that in the light of the said judgment, the present writ pet ition may be disposed of.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the facts and c ircumstances of this case is covered by the judgment, then appropriate order may be passed dis posing of the writ petition as law has been set to rest by virtue of the order of the Honble S upreme Court.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the grievances being limited one, this Court, without entering into merits of the cas e and expressing any opinion on the same, directs the opposite party no.4 to take a decision o n the representation of the petitioner filed on 3.9.2013 (Annexure-6) in the light of the judg ment passed by this Court and the Honble Supreme Court, as stated above, and if the facts and circumstances of the present case is covered by the ratio of Orissa State Cooperative Agricult ural and Rural Development Bank Limited versus- Sri Sachindra Harpal and others case (Supra), the same be disposed of by the opposite party no.4 within a period of three months after provi ding opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and communicate the result thereof to him. I f the petitioner is found to be entitled to receive any amount, as asked for, or any other amo unt, the same shall be paid to him within a period of one month from the date of taking such d ecision.

Biswaprakash Mishra v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswaprakash Mishra v. State and Ors.

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

Dasarathi Meher Vs State of Orissa

Siba Charan Paital Vs State of Odisha

Sidhe@Sidhesh Mukhi Vs State of Orissa

C.R.Enterprisers Vs Regulated Market

Ujjal Ku.Kundu Vs Regulated Market

Mahimananda Mishra Vs State of Orissa