Allowed

Bijaya Kumar Sathua v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC24 Jun 2019WP(C)/10564/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought direction to pay differential arrear and current salary. The Court, noting that the issue was already adjudicated in Radharani Samal, ordered opposite parties to consider the petitioner's case in light of that judgment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed opposite parties to consider the petitioner's case in light of Radharani Samal judgment preferably within four months.

Bijaya Kumar Sathua Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.10564 of 2019

¶2

2 24.06.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for direction to opposite parties no.2 and 3 to take immediate steps to disburse his differential arrear salary as well as current monthly salary in Trained Graduate Scale of pay from the date of attaining the age of 48 years on the basis of School and Mass Education Department Resolution dated 05.09.2011 and letter No.6259 dated 16.04.2010 as well as letter No.1772 dated 11.01.2011 of Director, Secondary Education, Odisha and the rules framed thereunder within a stipulated period.

¶5

Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar question has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in Radharani Samal vrs. State of Orissa , 2017(I) ILR-CUT-546 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing Writ Appeal No.176 of 2017 preferred by the State vide order dated 30.04.2019. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Radharani Samal (supra).

¶6

Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department admits the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

¶7

petitioner. He contended that direction may be issued to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Radharani Samal (supra) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2019 by dismissing Writ Appeal No.176 of 2017 preferred by the State.

¶8

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the ratio decided by this Court in Radharani Samal (supra) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of this order.

¶9

Urgent certified copy of this Court be granted on proper application.

¶10

…………………….… Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J

¶11

Ashok

Bijaya Kumar Sathua v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaya Kumar Sathua v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirakar Nayak Vs Pradosh Kumar Patnaik

Satosh Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Jyotsnamayee Dash Vs Director, S.Edn.

Sabita Dehury Vs Madhusudan Mishra

Sisir Ku.Sahoo Vs Mangement of Paradip Port Trust

Akshya Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha