The High Court, disposing of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation regarding reinstatement within three months and issue an urgent certified copy.
Directed opposite party no.2 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner 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. 3 of 2019
04. 08.03.2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the disengagement order dated 17.12.2015 passed by opposite party no.1 under Annexure-2 and further seeks for a direction to opposite party no.1 to reinstate him will full back wages keeping in view the letter dated 21.04.2018 under Annexure-6.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made representation to opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-4, 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.2 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-4 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)
JUDGE
Ashok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner against the disengagement order needs to be decided.
Petitioner
Opposite Party No.1
Opposite Party No.2
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
