Disposed

Ramesh Chandra Sing v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Feb 2023WP(C)/4780/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed liberty to petitioners to make individual representations regarding their claim for Sikshya Sahayak benefits and consequential service benefits under existing policies, directing the opposite party to decide within three months if representation is filed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make individual representations within three weeks; directive to opposite party to decide within three months of receipt.

Ramesh Chandra Sing 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.4780 of 2023

¶3

Ramesh Chandra Sing & Ors.

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

27.02.2023

Order No

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

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶14

3 . The Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

¶15

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:i) Admit the writ application; ii) Call for the records; iii) Issue rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Petitioners shall not be considered to avail the benefit of Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to the Resolution dtd.16.02.2008 & career advance policy dtd.01.08.2011, failing to show cause or showing insufficient cause/no cause, issue the writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the case of the Petitioners in the light of Judgment dtd.05.03.2020 in the case of Dahananjay Charan Dey and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others in

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 31679 of 2011 which was upheld in the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order under Annexure-8, extending the all consequential service benefits pursuant to the career advancement policy dtd.01.08.2011 regularizing the petitioners with effect from 03.05.2014, the date on which 6 years of service completed. iv) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice;

¶18

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound remain ever pray.”

¶19

4. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to make individual representations before Opp. Party No.1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of their claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence.

¶20

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.1 be communicated to the petitioners.

¶21

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶23

Sneha

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Ramesh Chandra Sing v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Sing 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Manas Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Basudev Barik Vs Vice Chancellor, Utkal University of Culture, Bihar

Phulamani Murmu Vs State of Odisha

Manjulata Behera Vs State of Odisha