Dismissed

Dinabandhu Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/31528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of a provident fund (GPF) account, service benefits, and coverage under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 for the petitioner based on the ratio established in Udayanath Rout v. State of Odisha.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's case in light of Udayanath Rout judgment within three months.

Dinabandhu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.31528 OF 2021

¶4

Dinabandhu Pradhan

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Advocate

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶9

….. Opposite parties

¶10

Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

07.10.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

¶18

Heard Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to open GPF account of the petitioner from the date of his regularization as has been made in favour of other employees and cover him under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 by granting all consequential service and financial benefits declaring the decision of opposite party no.1 dated 05.02.2020 is not sustainable in view of the principle decided by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 in WPC (OAC) No.2408 of 2015 and batch under Annexure-11.

¶20

¶21

Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in Udayanath Rout v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.2408 of 2015, disposed of on 09.08.2021). Therefore, direction may be issued to the authority to extend similar benefit to the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since similar question has been decided by this Court in WPC (OAC) No.2408 of 2015 and if the petitioner stands same footing, the benefit admissible to the petitioner should be granted in his favour.

¶23

Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Udayanath Rout (supra) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order.

¶24

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶26

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶27

A.K. Rana

Dinabandhu Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinabandhu Pradhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santanu Kumar Mangaraj Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Biranchi Narayn Panda Vs State of Odisha

Baina Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Satyaban Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Laxmi Mallik Vs State of Odisha