Single judge disposed of a writ petition without deciding merits. Directed Opposite Party No.3 to decide on the petitioner's representation regarding disengagement within three months.
Direction to Opposite Party No.3 to decide on the petitioner's representation within three months.
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.
W.P.C. No. 20008 of 2018
2. 11.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order of disengagement dated 29.07.2016 under Annexure-8 and further seeks for a direction to opposite parties to allow him to continue as B.A.M. immediately under the office of opposite party no.4.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made a representation to opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-11, but no decision has yet been taken.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.3 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-11 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy this order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
Dr.B.R.Sarangi,J.
Alok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner regarding their disengagement status should be considered by Opposite Party No.3 within three months.
Petitioner
Opposite Party No.3
Opposite Party No.4
Dr.B.R.Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
