Disposed

Prabina Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Feb 2023WP(C)/4428/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the relevant authority to consider a representation filed by the petitioner regarding revised pay scale and pension arrears within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Opposite Party No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation regarding revised pay and pension arrears within one month.

Prabina Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4428 of 2023

¶3

Prabina Kumar Sahoo ….

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶9

ORDER Order No 23.02.2023 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶10

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶11

“ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously please to admit this writ petition, issue a rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Party’s shall not be directed to release revised scale of pay w.e.f January 2016 to till 31.03.2022 and MACP, and accordingly his arrear of revise pensionary benefit shall not be disbursed to the petitioner within a stipulated period. If the Opposite Parties fail to file show cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to make absolute the said rule and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs directing the Opposite parties to disburse the revised scale of pay w.e.f. January, 2016 to till 31.03.2022 and MACP, and accordingly his arrear of revise pensionary benefit within a stipulated period”.

¶12

4 . In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-4-Series and the same may be directed to be considered within a

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶15

5 . As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-4-Series, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶17

Subrat

¶18

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Prabina Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabina Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Chandra Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Manjula Meher Vs Pramod Kumar Meher

Laxmidhar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Sr.Sidheswar Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Satish Chandra Mohanta Vs Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, Director of Elementary Edu. Odisha

Chaubaha Kunu Bariha Vs State of Odisha