Disposed

Premalata Barik v. the Union of India

Orissa HC5 Oct 2020WP(C)/23318/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, an ANM and wife of a journalist publishing Paradip News, challenged the refusal to renew her allotment of a quarter. The court directed the respondent to consider her representation within two weeks and assured that no eviction action would be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive eviction action; directed consideration of representation within two weeks and decision within four weeks.

Premalata Barik Vs the Union of India — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.23318 of 2020

¶2

05.10.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

The petitioner in this writ petition assails the decision communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.AD/EST/QRS/IX-53/19/1666 dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure-7) by the Senior Assistant Estate Manager, Paradip Port Trust, refusing renewal of allotment of Qr. No.NB-226 in favour of ‘Paradip News’ and directing the allottee to surrender the said quarter within a period of seven days.

¶5

Mr. Puspalaka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as an ANM in the Government Hospital, Paradip and on her application, the Chief District Medical Officer, Jagatsinghpur requested the Paradip Port Trust for allotment of a quarter in her favour. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted Quarter No.TB-5. Likewise, the husband of the petitioner, who is a Journalist and is publishing a periodical news paper called ‘Paradip News’ also requested the Paradip Port Trust for allotment of a quarter for running his office. Accordingly, he was also allotted ‘A’ type quarter, i.e. NA-85. Subsequently, the Senior Assistant Estate Manager, Paradip Port Trust vide his office order No.AD/EST/QRS/IX192/2010/624 dated 02.03.2015 (Annexure-4) allotted a Quarter No.NB-226 in favour of ‘Paradip News’ in lieu of allotment of two ‘A’ Type Quarters, namely, NA-85

¶6

¶7

and TB-5 allotted in favour of ‘Paradip News’ and the petitioner respectively and has permitted to utilize Quarter No.NB-226 as office-cum-residence. Since then the petitioner along with her husband is residing at Quarter No.NB-226. Allotment of Quarter No.NB-226 is being renewed from time to time on application by the husband of the petitioner. Lastly, the husband of the petitioner made an application for allotment of renewal of the said quarter. But the concerned authority without considering renewal of allotment of the said quarter rejected his request and directed him to vacate the Quarter No.NB-226 within a period of seven days and the Senior Assistant Estate Manager, Paradip Port Trust communicated the same vide his letter dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure-7). The petitioner being an ANM serving in Government Hospital, Paradip is entitled to a quarter and she was in fact allotted a quarter No.TB-5 in her favour. When Quarter No.NB-226 was allotted in favour of ‘Paradip News’ of which her husband is the proprietor in lieu of two ‘A’ type quarters including Quarter No.TB-5 allotted in her favour, she did not raise any objection to the same as the authorities have allowed him to utilize the same as his office-cumresidence. In view of non-renewal of such allotment, as aforesaid, she will be highly prejudiced. She has only three years to retire from Government service and if the allotment of quarter is refused, she will be without any accommodation to which she is otherwise entitled to.

¶8

¶9

In course of argument, Mr. Puspalaka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that regard, the petitioner has not made any grievance before the concerned authority as yet. In that view of the matter, he prays for a direction to consider the case of the petitioner, in the event the petitioner makes a comprehensive representation to that effect and not to take any coercive action pursuant to the letter under Annexure-7.

¶10

Taking into consideration the submissions and prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner makes a comprehensive representation to the competent authority of Paradip Port Trust for allotment of a quarter in her favour within a period of two weeks hence, the same shall be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such representation. Till disposal of the representation, if filed within the stipulated time, no coercive action in respect of Quarter No.NB-226, Nuabazar, Paradip Port shall be taken pursuant to letter dated 13.05.2020 as at Annexure-7.

¶11

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶12

……..……………………

¶13

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶14

¶15

Premalata Barik v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premalata Barik v. the Union of India

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

Nural Haque.Sahoo Vs C.R.P.F. and Ors.

Mrutyunjay Jena Vs State of Odisha

Mahavir Prasad Ram Vs Commissioner of Consolidaton

Debananda Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kumar Mohanty Vs Susmita Ray

Santosh Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha