Allowed

Kulamani Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Jan 2023WP(C)/127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing Opposite Party No. 2 to decide on his application for ex-gratia compensation. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the Court directed the opposite party to make a decision within three months and disposed of the writ. Outcome: Allowed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to decide on the petitioner's application for compensation within three months.

Kulamani Samal Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.127 of 2023

Kulamani Samal

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

25.01.2023

Order No

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

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶14

3 . The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

¶15

“Upon the circumstances, the petitioner therefore prays that notice of 'Rule Nisi' be issued to the opp. Parties calling upon them to show cause as to why the opp. Parties shall not be called to show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to the opposite parties to provide ex-gratia compensation to the petitioner within a stipulated time period.

¶16

And upon the opposite parties not showing cause or falling to show adequate cause, the said rule be made absolute and a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ as may be deemed fit and proper be issued directing the opp. Parties to provide ex-gratia compensation to the petitioner within a stipulated time period.

¶17

And to grant such other relief/reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

¶18

And for which act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” ”

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has filed an application at Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition before the O.P. No. 2, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that a direction be issued to Opposite Party No. 2 to take a decision on the above noted Petition within a specific time period.

¶21

5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No. 2 to take a decision on the above noted petition in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner.

¶22

6 . The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Kulamani Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulamani Samal 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

Hena Dei Alias Sethi Vs Chief Executive Officer,Cessu,Bbsr

Jugala Kishore Behera Vs State of Odisha

Birendra Kumar Mishra Vs Principal Secretary,Higher Education Dept.

Bijayalaxmi Swain Vs Manager (Legal), M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Bbsr

Sibaram Bhattamishra Vs State of Odisha

Sunita Pradhan Vs Ashwini Kumar