Disposed

State and Ors. v. Sankar Behera

Orissa HC26 Jul 2021WP(C)/25861/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, noting that the OAT relied on O.A.s with entirely different facts regarding the Opposite Party's temporary appointment, set aside the impugned order. The pending matter, due to the tribunal's abolition, was registered afresh as a writ petition for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and direct the OAT pending matter to be registered afresh as a writ petition for a fresh hearing before the Single Judge.

State and Ors. Vs Sankar Behera — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.25861 of 2013

¶3

State of Odisha and others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. M. K. Khuntia, AGA

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Sankar Behera

¶8

…. Opposite Party Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

26.07.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶15

This writ petition is directed against an order dated 4^th October, 2012 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (OAT) in O.A. No.1878 (C) of 2001.

¶16

The challenge before the OAT by the Opposite Party was to an order dated 10^th July, 2001, whereby the service of the Opposite Party as a temporary Plantation Guard was terminated.

¶17

Relying on orders passed by the OAT in O.A. No.1019 of 2001 and O.A. No.439 of 2002, the OAT has quashed the impugned order of termination.

¶18

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the Petitioners-State has drawn attention of the Court to the order passed in O.A. No.439 of 2002 by the OAT. The facts of that case were entirely different and had nothing to do with the temporary appointment of a Plantation Guard.

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate further points out that the facts in O.A. No.1019 of 2001 were also entirely different.

¶21

The above averments are unable to be countered by learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

¶22

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside.

¶23

Considering that the OAT has since been abolished and the pending matters of the OAT, which stand transferred to this Court by virtue of the judgment dated 7^th June 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2019 are to be heard by a learned Single Judge, it is directed that the O.A. No.1878 (C) of 2001, which would be registered afresh as a writ petition in this Court, be listed before the assigned Bench of learned Single Judge for directions on 4^th October, 2021 for a fresh hearing.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout 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 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶26

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

Chief Justice

(B.P. Routray)

Judge

M. Panda

Page 2 of 2

State and Ors. v. Sankar Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Ors. v. Sankar Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Narendra Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Anusaya Nag Vs State of Odisha

Managing Director,Sail Vs Pritiwanti Bage

D.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. Vs Malati Dibya

Manash Bhoi Vs State