Disposed

M.L.D.Raju v. Commandant General,Home Guards,Cuttack

Orissa HC24 Aug 2021WP(C)/414/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought reinstatement and quashing of an order. The High Court applied a cited decision from Maheswar Sahoo and directed the Home Guards Commandant to re-evaluate the petitioner's case within one and a half months by considering similar employment decisions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commandant General, Home Guards to re-visit the petitioner's case and take a decision within one and a half months.

M.L.D.Raju Vs Commandant General,Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 414 of 2018

M.L.D. Raju

….

Petitioner

Mr. K.C. Dash, Advocate

¶7

-Versus -

¶8

Commandant General, Home …. Guards, Cuttack and another

¶9

Opposite Parties

¶10

State Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

24.08.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

¶18

Heard the submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

¶19

This writ petition involves the following prayer:

¶20

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to admit the case and call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs;

¶21

i) To quash the order dtd.19.07.2017 under Annexure-4

¶22

ii) To direct the Opp. Parties to reinstate the petitioner with all financial and consequential benefits.

¶23

iii) To pass such other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶24

On the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for applying the decision of this Court in the case of Maheswar Sahoo and another Vs. State of Orissa and others , 2014 (II) OLR-739 to the case at hand. Learned State Counsel appearing for the opposite parties however does not dispute the applicability of the

¶25

Page 1 of 2

¶26

Ashok

¶27

decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the case at hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner also makes a submission by bringing a copy of the order passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri in C.T.No.04/2015 that similarly situated person has already been given employment.

¶28

Keeping this in view, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Commandant General, Home Guards, Odishaopposite party no.1 to re-visit the case of the petitioner and take decision taking into consideration the decision sought to be applied in the case of Maheswar Sahoo and another Vs. State of Orissa and others (supra) as well as the decision involving C.T.No.04/2015 by completing the entire exercise within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the

¶29

petitioner.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge

¶31

Page 2 of 2

M.L.D.Raju v. Commandant General,Home Guards,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.L.D.Raju v. Commandant General,Home Guards,Cuttack

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

Bhagirathi Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sikandar Champia Vs State of Odisha

Samarendu Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Virat Constructions Vs R.T.O.Jharsuguda

Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Mihir Ranjan Nayak Vs State and Ors.