Disposed

Himanshu Tarai v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Jul 2022WP(C)/17867/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in this Writ Petition did not express an opinion on the merits but directed the State of Odisha to decide the petitioner's representation regarding his appointment under the 1990 Rehabilitation Assistance Rule within three months, considering a Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation within three months and communicate the result.

Himanshu Tarai Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.17867 of 2022

¶3

Himanshu Tarai …. Petitioner

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶7

ORDER
26.07.2022
Order No
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the Opposite Parties.

¶8

3 . The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

¶9

“ Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the order under Annexure-10.

¶10

And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner under R.A. Scheme as per Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990 instead of Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 2020 as father of the Petitioner died much prior to new rule came into force.

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

Or pass such other orer/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶13

And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.”

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that through highlighting his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation at Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition before the O.P. No.1, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that a direction be issued to Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted petition within a specific time period.

¶15

5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted petition taking into account decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court available at Annexure-15 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner.

¶16

6 . The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶18

Sneha

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Himanshu Tarai v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Tarai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chakradhar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Subhas Chansra Rath Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Padhihari Vs State of Odisha

Sanjeeb Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Sri Baghrai Hembram Vs State of Orissa

Iswar Sahoo Vs Collector-Cum-D.M, Balangir