Partly allowed

Anjali Dash Goswami v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jan 2022WP(C)/38413/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking regularization of service and pension benefits. Petitioner pleaded reliance on two prior Division Bench decisions. Court disposed petition directing opposite party to regularize service and grant benefits within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing respondent to consider petitioner's case for regularization and grant post-retiral benefits within four months.

Anjali Dash Goswami Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.38413 of 2021

¶4

Anjali Dash Goswami

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. B.P. Satpathy, Advocate

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Odisha and others

¶9

….. Opposite parties

¶10

State Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

03.01.2022

Order No.

The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize her service within a stipulated time and further seeks direction to extend all service and financial benefits on such regularization as

¶19

provided under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

¶20

Mr. B.P. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this question has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19550 of 2011 disposed of on 03.02.2021 ( Chandra Nandi v. State of Odisha and others ) and W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019 disposed of on 03.02.2021 ( Premananda Tripathy v. State of Odisha ). It is contended that since the matter has already been decided by this Court and, as such, the petitioner having stood in the same footing, nothing remains to be adjudicated by this Court. Therefore, direction may be given to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid orders.

¶21

Learned State Counsel contended that since this question has already been decided by this Court, direction may be given to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid orders.

¶22

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this writ petition stands disposed of directing opposite party no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her service and grant post retiral benefits as due and

¶23

¶24

admissible to her taking into consideration the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by this Court in Chandra Nandi and Premananda Tripathy mentioned supra, as well as the ratio decided by this Court in State of Orissa v. Jyostna Rani Pattnaik (W.P.(C) No.1534 of 2008 disposed of on 19.12.2016), and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of an authenticated/certified copy of this order.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶26

Ashok

¶27

(DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.)

Anjali Dash Goswami v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Dash Goswami 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

Chittaranjan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ganesh Prasad Bhanja Vs State of Orissa

Bichitrananda Nayak Vs State Ofodisha

Mira Jena Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Rout Vs Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha

Dinesh Kumar Meher Vs Director,Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection,Bbsr