Dismissed

Padma Charan Das v. State

Orissa HC4 Dec 2019OJC/4482/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking declaration of pay scale and financial benefits payable by a private technical institution. The Court held the institution is not the 'State' under Article 12 and the petition is non-maintainable, directing the petitioner to seek redress from relevant authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner directed to approach concerned authority for redressal.

Padma Charan Das Vs State — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

O.J.C. No. 4482 of 1999

¶2

04.12.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. Sarat Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties and Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3-AICTE.

¶4

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶5

“It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue a rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be extended with the financial benefits as per the guideline issued by the AICTE and claim made in accordance with such guideline in Annexure-11;

¶6

If the Opp.Parties fail to show cause or give insufficient cause, issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to extend the benefits of scale of pay of AICTE applicable to the Petitioner and release financial benefits as due and admissible under law as per Annexure-11 within a stipulated period of two months;

¶7

In W.P.(C) No. 6990 of 2016, wherein the petitioner (therein) had claimed relief against a private institution, this Court vide order dated 27.06.2016 has passed the following order:

¶8

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:

¶9

“It is therefore prayed that this writ application may kindly be admitted and a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or orders may kindly be passed directing the opp.party No.3 and 4 to pay the arrear differential salary, increment with D.A. calculating senior Lecturer Scale of Pay Rs.10,000-325-15200/- with D.A. with effect from 1.2.2006 till 4.12.2007 and

¶10

-2-

¶11

senior grade lecturer scale of pay of Rs.12,000420-8300/with D.A. from 04.12.2007 till 1.1.2009 as per Executive Committee resolution and as per AICTE norms.

¶12

Sanjay Memorial Institution of Technology, opposite party No.3, is not the State within the meaning and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶13

It is open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.”

¶15

In view of the fact that the petitioner, in this writ petition, essentially seeks relief against Sanjaya Memorial Institute of Technology-opposite party No.5, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of his grievance.

¶16

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Connected Misc. Case/I.A, if any, is also disposed of.

¶17

Certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶18

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶19

…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶20

SKJ

Padma Charan Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Charan Das 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

Santosh Kumar Naik Vs State of Orissa

Birendra N.Bohidar Vs State

Balaram Bhoi Vs State

Orissa State Ware Vs A.C. of Income Tax

Orissa State Ware Vs A.C. of Income Tax

M/S.D.F.T.Pvt.Ltd Vs Commissioner of I.T