Disposed

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Sept 2020WP(C)/15961/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to open a sealed cover for the petitioner's promotion after exoneration in a vigilance case. The court directed the respondent authority to decide on the petitioner's representation to open the cover within three months, expressly stating no opinion on the merits. It permitted verified website printouts as certified copies.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation to open the sealed cover within three months.

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15961 of 2020

¶3

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha … Opp. Parties

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that on 16.08.2017, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for consideration of promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief from among the Chief Engineers. The petitioner being a Chief Engineer was in the zone of consideration. But, by then a criminal prosecution, i.e., Vigilance case being pending against the petitioner and, as such, sealed cover procedure was adopted with regard to his eligibility for promotion. In the meanwhile the petitioner having been exonerated from the said criminal prosecution and, as such, sealed cover is required to be opened and if the petitioner has been found to be suitable, he is required to be promoted to the post of Engineerin-Chief. But, the Authority concerned in spite of his exoneration in the criminal prosecution, for which he

¶8

¶9

was not promoted and sealed cover procedure was adopted, has failed to open the sealed cover, hence he has come this Court seeking a direction to open the sealed cover and extend the benefit of promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Engineer-in-Chief from the date his immediate junior was promoted to the said post with all service benefits.

¶10

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing on the question of admission, submits that though the petitioner has sought for the aforesaid relief, but it would suffice if a direction is given to the opposite party no.1 to dispose of his representation made in this regard vide Annexure-9 in a time bound manner, to which the learned counsel for the State has no objection.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner made vide Annexure-9 to open the sealed cover, if no decision on the same is taken till date, and pass necessary order in this regard within three months of receipt / production of copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

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.1, 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.

¶15

………………….. S.Pujahari, J.

¶16

RKS/MRS

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

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

Balaram Patro Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government

Anjali Kumari Satapathy Vs State of Odisha