Disposed

Bijay Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Feb 2023WP(C)/2910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking direction for pension arrear payment. The court directed the Opposite Party No. 4 to consider a pending representation within eight weeks and pass a reasoned order, dismissing the writ application at the interim stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No. 4 to consider the pending representation within eight weeks and pass a reasoned order.

Bijay Kumar Das 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.2910 of 2023

¶3

Bijay Ku. Das

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr.Swapnil Roy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr.N.K.Praharaj, A.G.A.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

03.02.2023

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

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue Rule NISI to the Opp.Parties to show cause as to ;

¶18

i) Why the action of the Opp.Parties in not releasing the arrear entitlement of the Petitioner as calculated in the abstract prepared vide communication dated 12.03.2014 under Annexure-14, in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal; and

¶19

ii) Why the Opp.Parties will not be directed to pay the arrear entitlement of the Petitioner as calculated in the abstract prepared vide communication dated 12.03.2014 under annexure-14 within a stipulated time; and

¶20

iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to pay interest @ 18% from 12.03.2014 till the date of final payment to the Petitioner.

¶21

And if the Opp.Parties do not show cause then the Rule

¶22

be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any

¶23

// 2 //

¶24

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation before the Superintending Engineer, Mayurbhanj Irrigation Division, Baripada, Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-15 on 25.05.2022. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-15 within a stipulated period of time.

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.4, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶26

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party no.4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-15 in accordance with law taking into consideration Annexures-12 and 13 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-15 by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶29

RKS

¶30

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶31

// 3 //

Bijay Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Kumar Das 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

Nuapada Gram Panchayat Vs State of Orissa

Santosh Ku.Sahoo Vs Govt.of Odisha

Sukanta Chandra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sujata Sarangi Vs Sunil Kumar Bansal, D.G.P, Headquarter, Buxibazar, Cuttack

Prashanta Panigrahi Vs Sridhar Nayak, Secy. Cum Regr. in Charge, Odisha Information Comn., Bbsr.

M/S.Deepak Steel and Vs State