Disposed

Balaram Patro v. Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government

Orissa HC8 Sept 2020WP(C)/15959/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On admission of a writ petition challenging a termination order, the court (without deciding merits) directed the opposite party to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within three months. The petitioner may certify a website printout as a certified copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.3 to decide on Annexure-3 representation within three months if pending.

Balaram Patro Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to… — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15959 of 2020

¶3

Balaram Patro … Petitioner

¶4

Versus - Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Govt., H & FW Department & others … Opp. Parties

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

08.09.2020 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶8

The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order of termination under Annexure6.

¶9

However, during the course of hearing on admission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner has challenged the order of termination but it would suffice, if direction is issued to the opposite party no.3 to dispose of the representation made vide Annexure-3, within a stipulated period.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State who accepts notice for the Opposite Parties has no objection for the same.

¶11

Considering the submissions made, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing the

¶12

¶13

Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure3 in the manner known to law, within three months of receipt of the copy of this order, if the same is pending and intimate the decision thereof to the petitioner.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merit of such representation.

¶15

Due to difficulties faced by the parties in getting the certified copies of this order and in view of the Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020, if a printout of the copy of this order from the website of the High Court is produced by the party or his counsel before O.P. No.3, the same be treated at par with the certified copy. However, the copy so produced must be certified by the petitioner or his counsel to be the true copy of the order passed.

¶16

………………….. S.Pujahari, J.

¶17

RKS

Balaram Patro v. Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram Patro v. Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government

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

Sudhir Kata Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Suryakanta Mangaraj Vs State of Odisha

Sanatan Nayak Vs General Manager, Odisha State Agricultural Marketing Board

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Anjali Kumari Satapathy Vs State of Odisha