Writ petition directed opposite party no.3 to consider the petitioner's recommendation from opposite party no.4 regarding disbursement of entitlement within three months, without commenting on merits.
Direct respondent to consider recommendation from opposite party no.4 and pass appropriate order 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. 12066 of 2021
02 23.06.2021
The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to sanction and disburse her entitlement as prayed for in Annexure-3 within a stipulated period.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the case of the petitioner has been recommended by opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-3 dated 24.02.2021 to opposite party no.3, the same is still pending for consideration.
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 opposite party no.3 to consider the recommendation made by opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-3 dated 24.02.2021 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of authenticated/certified copy this order.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020, as modified by Court’s notice no. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
…………….…………… DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.
Alok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent should consider the petitioner's recommendation from opposite party no.4 for disbursement of entitlement.
petitioner
opposite party no.3
opposite party no.4
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
