Quashed

Dr.Mihir Kumara Mishra v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology,Bbsr

Orissa HC29 Nov 2023WP(C)/19956/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order that failed to consider the petitioner's grievance regarding pay fixation, promotion, and financial benefits. The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Opposite Party No. 1 is quashed and the matter is remitted to Opposite Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision within three months.

Dr.Mihir Kumara Mishra Vs Orissa University… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 19956 of 2017

¶3

Dr. Mihir Kumara Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. T. Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Orissa University of Agriculture …. Opposite Parties And Technology, BBSR & Anr. Mr. S.C. Rath, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2)

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶7

ORDER 29.11.2023

¶8

Order No

¶9

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

¶10

2. Heard Mr. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2.

¶11

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order dtd.07.06.2016 so passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6.

¶12

4. It is contended that the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-5 when was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3930 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd.10.03.2016 disposed of the writ petition with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-5. Grievance of the Petitioner as made in Annxure-5 is as follows:-

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

“Under the circumstances stated above, I fervently pray your kindness to compassionately consider my case in lines of Dr. Sarbanarayan Mishra and initiate necessary steps for redressal of grievances of self and restore the natural justice on the followings;

¶15

Re-fixation of my pay at Rs.2200/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100- 4000/-w.e.f.01.01.1992,

¶16

Redressal of anomaly in pay and cadre in lines with the benefits extended to Dr.S.Mishra, Ex-PGRF,

¶17

Promotion to Asst. Professor (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and Asst. Professor (Selection Grade) w.e.f.01.01.2003,

¶18

Financial benefits arising out of re-fixation and promotion under CAS w.e.f.24.04.1997,

¶19

For act of yours I shall remain ever obliged to you.”

¶20

5. It is contended that even though this Court directed Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the grievance as raised under Annexure-5, but Opp. Party No. 1 without proper appreciation of the claim vis-à-vis the order, passed the impugned order on 07.06.2016 under Annexure-6, wherein nothing was considered as directed and as claimed by the Petitioner.

¶21

5.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the claim of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court so passed on 15.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 2185 of 2009 and subsequently followed by this Court in its order dtd.31.10.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 16840 of 2017. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order be set aside by remanding the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-5 following the order of this Court as cited supra.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

6. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties also fairly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision as the issue raised by the Petitioner has not been dealt with by the Opp. Party No. 1.

¶25

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the fact that the claim made by the Petitioner in Annexure-5 has not been considered as directed, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.07.06.2016 so passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-5 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is however observed that while taking such a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2185 of 2009 and subsequent order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16840 of 2017 shall be taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the claim raised by the Petitioner.

¶26

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶27

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶28

Sneha

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Nov-2023 19:38:52

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Dr.Mihir Kumara Mishra v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Mihir Kumara Mishra v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology,Bbsr

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

Suptimayee Acharya Vs Aswathy S., IAS

Nibedita Rout Vs State of Odisha

Padma Ch.Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Rajkishore Patra Vs State of Odisha

Chittaranjan Bhol Vs Principal,Institute of Textile Technology

Pritinanda Mohanty Vs State of Odisha