The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the State to consider a representation regarding equality of treatment with aided institution employees within three months, relying on cited precedents.
Directions to consider representation and pass appropriate order 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 11434 of 2022
Bishnu Mohan Nayak and others
Petitioners
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others
….. Opposite parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
29.11.2022
Page 1 of 2
representation filed by the Petitioners vide Annexure-3, taking into consideration the principle decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul and Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra , (supra), and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy this order.
Arun
(DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be treated at par with employees of aided educational institutions and extended benefits based on established principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt.) & othersReferred¶17
Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt.) & others, 2016 (I) ILR-1162 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra & othersReferred¶17
Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra & others (W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020)
Bishnu Mohan Nayak and others
State of Odisha and others
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
