The Court, without expressing opinion on merits, disposed of a writ petition seeking unpaid remuneration. It directed the opposite party to consider the petitioner's representation (Annexure-6) under law within two months.
Direction to opposite party to consider petitioner's representation within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3845 of 2023
Rabindra Kumar Nayak
…. Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-
State of Odisha & others
…. Opp. Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
22.02.2023
“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
i) Direct the opp. parties to release/disburse the unpaid monthly remuneration/duty pay for the period from 01.07.2019 to 15.01.2021 @ Rs.9300/- attached to the post of Revenue Inspector and for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2019 @ Rs.1200/- attached to the post of Supervisor and one month unpaid remuneration from 01.07.2019 to 30.07.2019 as the petitioner has discharged his duties for the said period and entitled for duty pay as per the calculation sheet submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated period failing which the opp. Party No.3 is liable for interest @ 12% per annum for such inordinate intentional delay;
// 2 //
deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice.”
( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge
Debasis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority ought to be directed to consider the pending representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period.
Rabindra Kumar Nayak
State of Odisha
A.K. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
