Disposed

All Orissa Judicial v. State

Orissa HC10 May 2023WP(C)/16391/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation regarding salary fixation and designation upgrade for Salaried Amins. The authority is directed to consider the grievances within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach authority with fresh representation within 15 days highlighting grievances; authority to pass appropriate order considering Sethy Commission report and apex Court judg

All Orissa Judicial Vs State — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 16391 of 2009

¶3

All Orissa Judicial Employees’ ….. Association

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Orissa and others ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Nayak, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶10

MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

¶11

ORDER 10.05.2023

¶12

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

¶14

Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to fix the salary of Salaried Amins in subordinate judiciary as per the resolution dated 02.03.2009 vide Annexure-V enhancing entry qualification to Graduation, change the designation of salaried Amins to Civil Court Commissioner and upgrade 50% of the posts. The petitioner further seeks direction to the opposite parties to fix the salary of Salaried Amins in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- by enhancing entry qualification from matriculation to graduation.

¶16

Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, without delving into the merits of the case, contended that since much water have flown in the meantime, the petitioner may be permitted to make fresh representation before the authority claiming the benefit, as has been prayed in the present writ petition, and direction may be given to the authority to consider the same within a stipulated time, to which Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties has raised no

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

objection.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the authority by making fresh representation within a period of 15 days hence highlighting the grievances as have been made in the writ petition so that the authority can consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law considering the nature of work discharged by the petitioners and also taking into the report furnished by the Sethy Commission as well as the judgment rendered by the apex Court.

¶20

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
Ashok JUDGE
ASHOK
Digitally signed by
KUMAR ASHOK KUMAR
JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
JAGADEB Date: 2023.05.11
MOHAPATRA 12:19:13 +05'30'

¶21

Page 2 of 2

All Orissa Judicial v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Orissa Judicial v. State

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

Samir Mohapatra andORS Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Bata India Ltd. Vs P.O.Industrial Tribu

Sushil Ku.Patnaik Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Mishra Vs State

M/S Bilt Graphic Pap Vs State and Ors.

Sattar Mohammed Vs Madhusudan Padhy