Disposed

Manoranjan Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC9 Nov 2020OJC/8440/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of writ petition seeking pay revision benefits. Petitioner allowed to submit detailed representation on unresolved issues to competent authority within two weeks; authority ordered within three months. Petition dismissed as no survival of claim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make detailed representation within two weeks; competent authority directed to pass order within three months. Writ petition disposed of for no survival of claim.

Manoranjan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P. No.1360 of 2015 O.J.C. No.8440 of 2000

¶2

4 09.11.2020

¶3

This matter is taken up through Video conferencing.

¶4

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The writ petition involves the following prayer:

¶5

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordship may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayer made hereunder will not be allowed.

¶6

And upon insufficient/no cause shown if any make the said rule obsolete. And further be pleased to issue writ/writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties 3 to 5 to allow the financial benefit to petitioner on revised scale of pay as per circular dated 08.03.2000 under annexure-4. And calculation sheet under Annexure-5 and calculate the amount till the date of payment with interest. And to forward the same to opposite party no.1 for approval.

¶7

And further be pleased to direct Opp. Party nos.1 & 2 to pay the same within a stipulated time.

¶8

And may further be pleased to pass such other order/orders writ/ writs as it deemed just and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶9

Basing on notice, opposite parties appearing through their

¶10

counsel Miss.S.L.Patnaik in clear term submitted that the documents by which the benefit involving the writ petition is claimed is not authenticated one being passed by an incompetent person and not enforceable. Statement that the documents being passed by an incompetent person, there is no dispute to such claim of the opposite party by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

In the process of submission, Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are other issues involved herein remain unresolved but not involving the writ petition at handand the petitioner may be permitted to make a detail representation involving some other issues survives.

¶12

In this view of the matter, this Court while disposing the writ petition permits the petitioner to make a detail representation

¶13

-2-

¶14

involving the unresolved issues before the competent authority within a period of two weeks hence, in such even the competent authority by applying its lawful mind, pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation along with copy of this order by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of with the observation made hereinabove for no survival of claim right now.

¶15

Petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s Website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notification No.4587 dated 25.3.2020.

¶16

��. sks BISWANATH RATH,J

Manoranjan Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Mohanty 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajanikanta Rout Vs State of Orissa

Tulasi Das Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Immamuddin Vs State of Odisha

Hajari Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Ipicol) Vs State of Odisha

Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Ipicol) Vs State of Odisha