Petitioner challenges denial of GPF benefits and coverage under Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. Bench directs respondent to decide on pending representation within three months without expressing opinion on merits.
Direction to opposite party no.1 to take decision on representation filed by petitioner vide Annexure-3 within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 5929 of 2021
Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit of GPF under the old Rules so also to make a further declaration that the petitioner is covered by the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 prior to its amendment by taking into account initial date of appointment of the petitioner keeping in view the decisions held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors. , (CWP No. 2371 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010), which has been upheld by the Hon’ble apex Court in SLP(C) No.23578 of 2012 [SLP(C) CC No.17901 of 2011] disposed of on 30.07.2012 ( State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal), and also in the case of Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 10238 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 10.05.2019) with all consequential benefits.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made a representation to the opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-3, but no decision has yet been taken.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified/authenticated copy this order by the petitioner.
…………….……………
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
Ashok
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of GPF under old Rules and covered by Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 before its amendment.
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner pending before the respondent requires prompt consideration and decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors.Referred¶4
Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (CWP No. 2371 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010)
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Harbans LalReferred¶4
Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 10238 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 10.05.2019)Referred¶4
Petitioner
School & Mass Education Department
DR. B.R. SARANGI
Ashok
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
