Allowed

Mitrabhanu Mahalik v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC21 Sept 2021WP(C)/5110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the quashing of an order relieving the petitioner from a post as GRS. Relying on a previous judgment, the Court held that the petitioner could not be relieved during the subsistence of an agreement executed in compliance with the MGNREG Act and allowed him to continue in his post.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order in Annexure-4 relieving the petitioner from the post of GRS is quashed; directed to continue in the post.

Mitrabhanu Mahalik Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC No. 5110 of 2018

¶3

Mitrabhanu Mahalik

¶4

….

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai,

¶7

Advocate

¶8

-Versus -

¶9

State of Odisha & Others

¶10

…. Opposite Parties

¶11

Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER_

21.09.2021

Order No.

07.

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶19

Heard Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶20

Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Manas Kumar Swain v. State of Orissa and others, 2020 (I) ILR-CUT-357.

¶21

Pursuant to order dated 13.09.2021, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that the order impugned is appealable one, but in view of the judgment of this Court in Manas Kumar Swain (supra), which is applicable to the petitioner, the writ petition can be decided by this Court.

¶22

In view of such contention, this Court perused the judgment of this Court in Manas Kumar Swain (supra), where in pargraph-17, the following observation has been made.

¶23

“17. By 73^rd amendment of the Constitution 1992, Part-IX has been inserted to the Constitution by inserting Article 243 to 243(o). To achieve the objective of such amendment of

¶24

Page 1 of 1

¶25

provisions of the Constitution and strengthening the peoples participation in panchayat administration, if the benefit has been extended to the petitioner in consonance with the constitutional mandate read with MGNREG Act, 2005 and operational guidelines issued under the provisions of the Act itself and basing upon which the petitioner was engaged and allowed to continue by virtue of the agreement executed between the parties, during subsistence of such agreement, the authority cannot curtail the same without any rhyme or reason by relieving him forthwith. Thereby, the entire action of opposite party no.4 by issuing order in Annexure-4 relieving the petitioner from the post of GRS cannot sustain in the eye of law and accordingly the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in his post as GRS, as before, till subsistence of the agreement between the parties and allow him to discharge the duty allotted to him, in consonance with the provisions of law.”

¶26

In view of such position, since this writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court Manas Kumar Swain (supra), this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶28

( Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶29

A.K. Rana

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Mitrabhanu Mahalik v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitrabhanu Mahalik v. State of Orissa

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

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

Ratikanta Barik Vs State

Binati Jena Vs State of Odisha