Disposed

Upendra Kumar Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Jul 2022WPC(OA)/628/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging an order by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works, noting that the petitioners were subsequently regularized. The court observed that if any cause of action subsists, petitioners may approach the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners at liberty to make appropriate application before appropriate authority if cause of action subsists.

Upendra Kumar Tripathy Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC(OAC) Nos.626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 650, 651, 652, 669, 695, 698, 709, 710, 713, 714, 715, 737, 742, 777, 778, 782, 783,784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 819, 823 & 1128 of 2016

¶3

In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

¶4

WPC(OA) No.695 of 2016

¶5

Bhagaban Nanda …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Pratap,
A.K.Mohanty & S.Dash.
For Opp. Parties : Standing Counsel
Mr. M.K.Balabantaray.
PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing:22.07.2022 and Date of Order: 26.08.2022

¶8

¶9

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .

¶10

1 . This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶11

2. Since common question is involved in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions, all are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

3. Heard Mr. M. Pratap, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶14

3. All these Writ Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.4.

¶15

4. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order by directing to keep in abeyance the said order passed on 31.03.2016 and in view of the said interim order, the Petitioners were allowed to continue as before.

¶16

5. It is further submitted that during pendency of the matter, the Petitioners have been brought over to the regular establishment in the meantime.

¶17

6. It is submitted that even though the Petitioners have been brought over to the regular establishment but they have not been released with some financial benefits.

¶18

7. Mr. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that since the order of transfer is under challenge and the Petitioners in the meantime have been regularized in the regular establishment, nothing remains to be decided in these writ petitions.

¶19

8. Taking into account submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties, this Court disposes of all these writ petitions with an observation that if any cause of action still

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

subsists, the Petitioners are at liberty to make appropriate application before appropriate authority.

¶23

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶24

10. Xerox copy of the orders be placed in all the connected matters.

¶25

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 26 th of August, 2022/Subrat

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Upendra Kumar Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Tripathy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agananda Bagh Vs State of Odisha

Minati Das Vs State of Orissa

Brajakishore Hota Vs State of Orissa

Avijit Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Prasad Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Bhramarbara Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa