Disposed

Rabindranath Sethi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Oct 2020WP(C)/25976/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought a declaration regarding G.P.F. benefits under old Rules and coverage by Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, relying on Punjab High Court decisions. The court held that the petition was not entertainable due to a pending representation and directed the respondent to look into the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed opposite party no.1 to look into petitioners' request based on missing Annexures and take a decision within one and half months.

Rabindranath Sethi Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.25976 of 2020

¶2

16.10.2020

¶3

This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr.K.K.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶5

This writ petition involves the following

¶6

prayer:

¶7

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ application be allowed;

¶8

And

¶9

a) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ be issued commanding the O.Ps. to allow the petitioners to avail the benefit of G.P.F. under the old Rules so also a further declaration be made that he is covered by the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 prior to its amendment by taking into account their initial date of appointment 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 31.8.2010), 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;

¶10

And

¶11

b) Any other order/orders or direction/directions be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners;

¶12

And for this act of kindness, the

¶13

petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶14

For the nature of relief sought for and for pendency of the representation at the instance of the petitioners, vide Annexure-4 on the selfsame grounds,

¶15

uks

¶16

¶17

this writ petition is not entertainable at this stage and the same stands disposed of directing opposite party no.1 to look into the request of the petitioners, vide Annexure-4 and take decision taking into account the development through Annexure-3 series within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of this order so also copy of the writ petition by the petitioners within seven days, as undertaken.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶19

Biswanath Rath, J.

¶20

¶21

Rabindranath Sethi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindranath Sethi 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahadeb Das Vs State of Odisha

Susmita Sethy Vs Ranjana Chopra

Dipanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Avimanu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs Biju Pattanaik National Steel Institute Savodaya Nagar

Gopal Chandra Sahu Vs State of Odisha