Allowed

Ratikanta Barik v. State

Orissa HC21 Sept 2021WP(C)/18790/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of service as a driver. Relying on a prior judgment, the court directed the petitioner's service be regularized from the date a junior petitioner's was regularized, along with financial benefits and arrears.

What did the court decide?

Service be regularized from the date the junior petitioner's service was regularized, along with all financial benefits and arrears within three months.

Ratikanta Barik Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No. 18790 of 2014

¶3

Ratikanta Barik

¶4

….

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. P.K. Rath, Adv.

¶7

-Versus -

¶8

State of Odisha and others ….

¶9

Opposite Parties

¶10

State Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

21.09.2021

Order No. 1

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

¶18

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash Annexure-1 and 10, and issue direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service as against the admissible sanctioned post of driver with all consequential benefits along with arrears within a stipulated time.

¶19

Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a similar question has come up before this Court and the same has been decided by this Court in the judgment dated 27.03.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 5727 of 2005 ( Gajendra Prasad Behera v. State of Orissa and others). This Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction.

¶20

“(i) the petitioner be treated at per with his juniors like opposite parties 6 and 7, whose services have been regularized with effect from 18.01.1990, and his services

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

be regularized from that date.

¶23

(ii) After regularization of services, the petitioner be granted all the financial benefits admissible to the post with all arrears as due and admissible, which should be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.”

¶24

Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State states that the impugned order passed by the authority is well within the jurisdiction and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the writ petition and the same may be dismissed.

¶25

Considering the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since this Court has already considered the similar matter and passed the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 5727 of 2005 disposed of on 27.03.2014, applying the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶26

(i) The petitioner be treated at par with the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2013 who is junior to him, and the service of the petitioner be regularized from the date his junior has been regularized.

¶27

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶29

Ashok

¶30

( Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Ratikanta Barik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratikanta Barik v. State

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

Niranjan Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Prakash Singh Vs State of Odisha

Chudamani Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Chairman Barik Vs State of Odisha

Binati Jena Vs State of Odisha

Karunakar Ghadai Vs State of Odisha