Partly allowed

Madhuchhanda Bhagat v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC9 Mar 2023WP(C)/28963/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application to recall an order dismissing a writ petition regarding unpaid Government Provident Fund (GPF). The petition was restored to the file following a review of submissions regarding the remaining balance not credited.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the opposite party to credit the balance GPF amount along with interest within one month, if not yet credited.

Madhuchhanda Bhagat Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 28963 of 2011

¶3

Madhuchhanda Bhagat

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp.Parties

¶9

Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶12

ORDER_ 20.04.2023

¶13

I.A. No.4087 of 2023

¶14

Order No. 05.

¶15

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

This is an application for recalling of the order dated 09.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 28963 of 2011.

¶17

Considering the submissions I.A. is allowed.

¶18

The writ petition is restored to file.

¶19

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 28963 of 2011

¶21

Order No.

¶22

05.

¶23

On oral prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the cause title to the extent of inserting the name of District Education Officer instead of Inspector of Schools, Khorda as opposite party No,4.

¶24

Necessary correction be carried out in Court.

¶25

The limited grievance of the petitioner is, though different amounts were deducted from his salary towards GPF from October, 1996 to February, 2011 totaling Rs.2,08,099/-, the same was not credited to his account.

¶26

Page 1 of 1

¶27

In course of hearing, it is submitted by learned State Counsel on instructions that the GPF amount has in the meantime been deposited.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that as per the instructions received from his client a sum of Rs.51,056/- still remains to be credited to his account along with interest. Such being the factual position, the writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party No.4 to credit the balance amount of GPF along with interest in the account of the petitioner, if the same is actually found to have not been credited. Such exercise should be completed within a period of one month.

¶29

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶30

( Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge

¶31

A.K. Rana

¶32

Page 2 of 2

Madhuchhanda Bhagat v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuchhanda Bhagat v. State and Ors.

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

Dr.Ganesh Pr.Tripath Vs State and Anr.

Manindra Kumar Samal Vs State of Orissa

Ganesh@Ganapati Rao Vs State of Odisha

Bapi Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Raju Tarei Vs State of Odisha

Mohammad Aslam Khan Vs State of Odisha