Disposed

Abhinna Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Feb 2021WP(C)/5931/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking GPF and pension benefits under Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. It directed the respondent department to decide on the petitioner's representation within three months, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party no.1 to take a decision on Annexure-3 representation and pass appropriate order within three months.

Abhinna Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 5931 of 2021

¶2

19.02.2021 The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

¶3

Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit of GPF and pension under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and to make a further declaration that the petitioner is covered under the said Pension Rules, 1992 prior to its amendment by taking into account the initial date of appointment, keeping in view the decisions held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India and Ors. v . N.R.Parmar and Ors ., reported in 2012 (13) SCC 340 and Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (CWP No.2371 of 2010, decided on 31.8.2010), by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 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 taking into account 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.

¶5

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made a representation to the opposite

¶6

party no.1 vide Annexure-3, but no decision has yet been taken.

¶7

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.

¶8

Learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.202.

¶9

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶10

Ashok

Abhinna Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinna Kumar Rout 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhuna Nayak Vs State and Ors.

Daityari Patel Vs State and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Kandi Vs the State of Odisha

Kabita Panda Vs State of Odisha

Anasuya Ojha Vs State of Odisha

Nirmala Jena Vs State of Odisha