Disposed

Rajendra Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Jul 2022WPC(OA)/3300/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the withdrawal of ACP/RACP benefits for specific teachers. It permitted the petitioner to make individual representations to the District Education Officer, directing that similarly situated teachers be considered for regularization and benefit extension.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to make an individual representation to the District Education Officer to decide on regularization and benefits.

Rajendra Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.C(OA) No.3300 of 2015

¶3

Rajendra Kumar Pradhan

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶9

ORDER 08.07.2022 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶10

Order No

¶11

2. Heard Mr. A.K.Apat, learned counsel for Petitioner and Mr. Prusty, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶12

3. Counter Affidavit filed by the Department was produced before this Court and the same be kept on record.

¶13

4. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-3, wherein the D.E.O, Samabalpur has directed to withdraw the benefit of ACP/RACP extended in favour of the Primary School Teachers who are appointed during the incumbency of late K.C.Guru, Ex-Inspector of School, Sambalpur.

¶14

5. But it is submitted that in the meantime most of the teachers similarly situated have been regularized and they have been extended with the benefit.

¶15

6. Mr. Prusty, on the other hand submitted that the impugned communication was issued basing on some directions issued by the learned Tribunal on 10.03.2000 in O.A. No.2583

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

(C)/ 1999. However, it is submitted that the said order is a provisional one.

¶18

7. Be that as it may, since most of the teachers appointed during the incumbency of late K.C.Guru have been regularized and similarly situated teachers have been extended with the benefit of ACP / RACP, this Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the Petitioner to make individual representations before the Opposite Party No.3- District Education Officer, Deogarh.

¶19

8. It is observed that if any such application is moved with a period of four weeks from today individually, the said Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three months.

¶20

9. It is however observed that while taking such a decision, the said Opposite Party shall take into consideration the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that similarly situated teachers have not only been regularized but also they have extended with the benefit.

¶21

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶23

Subrat

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Rajendra Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Saroja Kumar Nanda Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Budhadev Jena Vs Chudamani Seth,Director Elementary Edn.

D.M.,National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs kshirabdhi tanya kuanr

Smriti Rekha Jena Vs State of Odisha

Diptirekha Samantaray Vs Opsc.