Dismissed

Purna Chandra Barik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 May 2022WP(C)/9977/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of service with consequential benefits. The court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's pending representation through a speaking order within three months and communicate the decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to impose a three-month time limit for considering the petitioner's representation on regularization with consequential benefits.

Purna Chandra Barik Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9977 of 2022

¶3

Purna Chandra Barik

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr.D.P.Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr.K.K.Nayak, A.G.A.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.05.2022

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶18

(i) Direct the Opp.Parties to forthwith regularize the service of the Petitioner in available vacancy with all consequential service and monetary benefits upon completion of 6 years of services.

¶19

(ii) And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

¶20

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has submitted representation before the Director, General of Police, Odisha, Opposite Party No.2 on 11.05.2021 under Annexure-4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶24

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party no.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken on the representation of the Petitioner, shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶27

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶28

RKS

Purna Chandra Barik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purna Chandra Barik 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

Janmejaya Panda Vs Bishnupada Sethy,Ias

Santosh Kumar Patel Vs Nitin Kushalkar, IPS

Pratap Kumar Behera Vs Anu Garg,Ias

Raghunath Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Priyambada Parida Vs State of Odisha

Kalia Maharana Vs State of Odisha