The High Court of Orissa issued a direction to the State to take a decision within three months on a prayer for pension release under the Aided Education Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Direction to opposite party No.1 to take a decision on the petition within three 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.5906 of 2023
Aswini Kumar Dash
…. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
Opp. Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order
06.03.2023
No
1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 . The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: -
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to issue a rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties and issues a Writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Writs directing the opposite parties, to sanction and release pension of 50% of the last pay drawn, being the approved employee of an aided institution as due & admissible at the rate of 50% the last pay drawn in favour of the petitioner in accordance with Orissa Aided Education Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 and taking into account the judgment pronounced by this Hon’ble Court in case of Sarat Chandra Parida Vrs. State of Odisha, reported in 2015(II) ILR-CUT-94 within a stipulated time.
Or in alternative, in the interest of justice & equity, any other appropriate Writ (s), direction (s), order (s) be passed, directing the Opp. Parties to release pension and other financial benefits in favour of the petitioner from the date
// 2 //
of his retirement in accordance with provisions of the retirement benefits rules with due interest on the arrear pension as Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper.”
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting her grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, she prays that a direction be issued to opposite party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted petition within a specific time period.
5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs opposite party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Basudev
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction can be issued to the State to decide on a delay in pension sanction and release within a three-month period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarat Chandra Parida V. State of OdishaReferred¶15
Sarat Chandra Parida Vrs. State of Odisha, 2015(II) ILR-CUT-94 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aswini Kumar Dash
State of Odisha
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
