Petitioner challenged an order (Annexure-1) seeking advanced increments and increment date preponement. The court noted the cause of action was lost due to subsequent developments improving the petitioner's position as per a counter affidavit, leading to dismissal on that ground.
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.
OJC NO.5781 OF 2000
10 5.11.2020 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri R.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the contesting opposite parties.
The writ petition involves the following prayer involving the challenge to Annexure-1 :-
m
“The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this case, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same and issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other or further order/direction quashing Annexure-1.
And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to grant 4(four) advanced increments to the petitioner’s basic pay which was granted in his favour from the date of his joining (20.11.1991) and remove all anomalies from that date ; the petitioner also prays for a direction to the opposite parties for preponement of his anniversary date of increment to 1.4.1992 in terms of Annexure-2…”
While advancing his submission, Sri R.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner bringing to the development through the counter affidavit, particularly at Annexure-A at page-56 submitted that pending consideration of the writ petition, there has been consideration of the case of the petitioner and as appears, there has been some improvement in the position of the petitioner inasmuch as taking into account the claim of the petitioner. There is also consequential direction to the Finance Department for appropriate release. Sri Mohanty at this stage of the matter submitted that he has no further instruction from his client after the development through
2
Annexure-A.
For the counter averment and the development through Annexure-A discussed herein above, the cause of action for filing the writ petition appears to have been lost. The writ petition thus stands dismissed for having no cause of action involving Annexure-1 particularly.
…………………………
Biswanath Rath, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives given the improvement in petitioner's position via a counter affidavit and subsequent consideration of the case by authorities.
Petitioner
Opp. Parties
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
