Disposed

Harekrushna Rout v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC17 Aug 2020WP(C)/5804/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought benefits under aided institution rules for block grant staff. Court disposed of petition, directing the Director of Higher Education to consider and dispose of the pending representation within four months, keeping the cited ratio in mind.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Director of Higher Education, Odisha to dispose of petitioner's representation within four months.

Harekrushna Rout Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.5804 OF 2020

¶2

02 17.08.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department.

¶4

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the opposite parties to treat him at par with staffs of Aided Educational Institution and grant him benefit as per the provisions of the Orissa Aided Educational Institution Employees General Provident Fund Rules, 1983 as well as leave benefit as per the Leave Rules, 1977 including the pensionary benefit upon his retirement from service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees’ Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981.

¶5

Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶6

submits that the service condition of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions mutatis mutandis applies to the staff of block grant educational institutions. In that regard, the petitioner made a representation to the Director of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 02.12.2019 as at Annexure-4 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul –v- State

¶7

of Orissa and others , reported in 2016 (I) ILR-CUT 1162 and the same is still pending. He, therefore, submits that

¶8

¶9

the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid benefit in view of the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri (supra).

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department submits that the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submits that if the representation of the petitioner is pending, a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to dispose of the same.

¶11

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case disposes of this writ petition with a direction that the Director of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.2 shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner as at Annexure-4 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of the Orissa High Court keeping in view the ratio deiced in the case of Ritanjali Giri (supra).

¶12

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.

¶13

.................................

¶14

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶15

¶16

Harekrushna Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harekrushna Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saikh Akbar Uddin Vs the Secretary Health and Family Welfare Deptt.

Prahallad Dikshit Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Pratap Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Krushnachandra Champatiray Vs State of Odisha

Tuna Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Jena Vs the State of Odisha