A single judge disposed of a writ petition regarding GPF and pension benefits. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the court directed the respondent to decide on a representation filed by the petitioner within three months.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 24636 of 2020
Heard Mr. B.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit of GPF under the old Rules so also to make a further declaration that the petitioner is covered by the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 prior to its amendment by taking into account initial date of appointment of the petitioner keeping in view the decisions held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors. , (CWP No. 2371 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010), which has been upheld by the Hon’ble apex Court in SLP(C) No.23578 of 2012 [SLP(C) CC No.17901 of 2011] disposed of on 30.07.2012 ( State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal), and also in the case of Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 10238 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 10.05.2019) with all consequential benefits.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made a representation to the opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-4, but no decision has yet been taken.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-4 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified/authenticated copy this order by the petitioner.
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party should be directed to take a decision on the petitioner's representation regarding GPF benefits under old rules.
Whether a declaration is needed that the petitioner is covered by the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 as per Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors.Referred¶4
Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors. (CWP No. 2371 of 2010)
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Harbans LalReferred¶4
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal (SLP(C) CC No.17901 of 2011)
Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and othersReferred¶4
Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 10238 of 2017 (O&M))
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
School & Mass Education Department & Other Respondents
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
