The High Court of Orissa did not express an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's Writ Petition regarding retirement benefits. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with relevant documents within three weeks for final disposal.
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
WPC(OA) No.1810 of 2015
Antarjyami Sahu
Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties
COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.07.2022
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-
“(i) Necessary order / orders be passed so as to declare the prospective effect date i.e. 1.1.2013 depriving of the applicant (retired in between 1.9.2008 to 31.12.2012) to have the financial retiral benefits prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2013 under RACP Scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary.
(ii) Necessary direction / directions be issued so as to grant financial up-gradation i.e. 3% of the basic pay + grade pay of the promotional post (out of the promotional hierarch) under the RACP Scheme notionally from the date of completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service in one post and Grade with actual release of financial retiral benefits under RACP Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2013 within a stipulated time”.
4 . Considering the submission made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before
// 2 //
the Opposite Party No.1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three weeks hence.
5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to dispose of the representation within a period of three months and by giving personal hearing to the Petitioner. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioner within that time.
Subrat
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prospective effect date depriving the applicant of financial retirement benefits is unreasonable and arbitrary.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Antarjyami Sahu
State of Odisha
Biraj Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
