Disposed

Mahendra Kumar Jena v. Union of India

Orissa HC21 Mar 2023WP(C)/6771/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ application filed by an employee seeking pay protection, the High Court of Orissa disposed of the matter at the admission stage. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner pending representation and pass a speaking order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner pending representation filed before the Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar, to be considered within eight weeks.

Mahendra Kumar Jena Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6771 of 2023

¶3

Mahendra Kumar Jena …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr.P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I. Ms.B.Tripathy, C.G.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 21.03.2023

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Central Government Counsel.

¶15

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

¶16

“ Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶17

i) Direct the Opp.Parties to grant the monthly salary of Rs.41,600/-, instead of Rs.21,700/- by allowing pay protection with notional increments by counting the intervening period of service from 30.08.2000 to 19.10.2019 as continuity of service, as has been granted to his colleagues, engaged during 1995, instead of like a fresh employee of 2019 for the interest of justice;

¶18

ii) Pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.”

¶19

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation before the Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-7 on 15.12.2022. 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.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-7 within a stipulated period of time.

¶22

Learned Central Government Counsel submits that she has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

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.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexures-7 in accordance with law taking into consideration Annexure-3, 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-7 by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶24

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

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶27

RKS

Mahendra Kumar Jena v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Jena v. Union of India

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

Susama Patra Vs State and Ors.

Umakanta Sahoo Vs State and Ors.

Shibani Thakur Vs Sambalpur University

N.Amulu Vs O.I.Co.Ltd and Anr.

Dr. Tapa Prakash Behera Vs State of Odisha

Madhusudan Bhasra Vs Sate of Odisha