Allowed

Sri Baikuntha Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Feb 2022WPC(OA)/587/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition seeking promotion benefits deemed due to the petitioner from 30.06.2010. The court held that if the petitioner's case is covered by a previous Administrative Tribunal order allowing similar promotion questions, there is no reason to keep the writ pending.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite parties to extend the benefit, as due and admissible to the petitioner, in terms of the order dated 28.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 983 of 2010.

Sri Baikuntha Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC (OA) No. 587 of 2013

¶3

Baikuntha Panigrahi ..... Petitioner Mr. Manas Pati, Advocate - VersusState of Odisha & Ors. ….. Opp. Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

25.02.2022

Order No.

This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶11

Heard Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-2, in which promotion has been given to the juniors of the petitioner, and further seeks direction to the opposite parties that the petitioner is deemed to have been promoted w.e.f. 30.06.2010, from which date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits within a stipulated time.

¶13

Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar question had come up for consideration before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 983 of 2010 (Sri Tejraj Patel v. State of Orissa and Ors.), which was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2013, and the case of the petitioner, being squarely covered by the said case, may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.01.2013 passed in the said O.A.

¶14

Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the

¶15

State contended that against the order dated 28.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 983 of 2010 (Sri Tejraj Patel v. State of Orissa and Ors.), review application has been filed by the State, which is still pending for adjudication.

¶16

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the view that if the case of the petitioner is covered by order dated 28.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 983 of 2010 (Sri Tejraj Patel v. State of Orissa and Ors.), there is no justifiable reason to keep this writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the opposite parties to extend the benefit, as due and admissible to the petitioner, in terms of order dated 28.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 983 of 2010 (Sri Tejraj Patel v. State of Orissa and Ors.).

¶17

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶18

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶19

Alok

Sri Baikuntha Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Baikuntha Panigrahi 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

Pramila Parida Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Odisha

Muralidhar Naik, Vs State of Odisha

Sulachana Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Nadia Chandra Behera Vs State of Orissa

Sri Susanta Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Abhaya Kuamar Panda Vs State of Odisha