Petitioner sought a direction for regular increments and payment in ORSP Rules. Court, avoiding merit, directed opposite parties to decide on the filed representation within three months.
Direction to opposite parties to decide on the representation within three months and pass appropriate order.
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.
WP(C) No. 18649 of 2019
02. 01.10.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to allow regular and continuous yearly increments to the scale of pay of petitioner and allow payment to the petitioner in the ORSP Rules, 2006 and 2016 within a stipulated period considering the representation under Annexure-6.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made a representation before opposite parties no. 1 and 2 vide Annexure-6, but no decision has yet been taken.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing opposite parties no.1 and 2 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-6 and pass appropriate order 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.
Ashok
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the opposite parties to decide on the petitioner's representation regarding regular increments and pay scale enhancement.
Whether a writ petition can be disposed of on limited grounds without expressing an opinion on the merits.
What is the time limit for the opposite parties to pass an order on the representation.
The Petitioner
Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Ashok
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
