Disposed

Chandramani Padhihary v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Jun 2023WP(C)/7600/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a Gauge Reader, sought regularisation of service and pensionary benefits analogous to similar employees benefited by a 1992 Tribunal order. The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application in light of said Tribunal order and related case law within two months.

What did the court decide?

The Opposite Party is directed to consider the petitioner's case in light of the Tribunal order dated 6th January 1992 and dispose of it within two months.

Chandramani Padhihary Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7600 of 2023

¶3

Chandramani Padhihary

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Tarun Patnaik, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

26.06.2023

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

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶18

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble court would be gracious enough to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same issue writ/writs in nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other/further writ/direction directing the opp. parties as follows:-

¶19

a) Treat the service period of the petitioner after completion of five joining in the post “Gauge Reader” till the date of superannuation under Annexure-10 as regular taking into

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

consideration the judgment dated 06.01.1992 passed in O.A. No.973 of 1989 of similar situated persons by the State Administrative Tribunal under Annexure-1.

¶22

b) Release the service benefits as has been granted under Annexure-1 in favour of similarly situated persons and consequential pensionary benefits be released in favour of the petitioner within a short stipulated period with interest.

¶23

c) And any other/further order/orders, writ/writs be issued taking into the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing O.A. No.3501 of 2001 with a prayer to extend the benefits that has been given to the similar situated persons vide order dated 6^th January, 1992 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.973 of 1989. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after abolition of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the aforesaid O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.3501 of 2001. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2021 dismissed the said WPC(OAC) on the ground of no instruction. However, while passing such order, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to revive writ petition in the event the cause of action still survives. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the cause of action still survives.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture also submitted that the present Petitioner stands similar footing with the

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

persons who had approached the Tribunal and they have already extended the benefits claimed by the Petitioner by virtue of order dated 6^th January, 1992. Therefore, it is submitted that the authorities be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of similarly situated persons in O.A. No.973 of 1989.

¶28

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that he has no objection in the event the authorities are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.973 of 1989. He further submitted that while considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties be also directed to consider the case of the Petitioner taking into consideration similar other direction given by the Tribunal vide order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.447 of 2006 (Hrusikesh Singh v. State of Orissa). It is further contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the Resolution dated 22^nd January, 1965 passed by the Secretary to Government of Odisha, Finance Department under Annexure-4 to the writ petition is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, it is also submitted that the authorities be also directed to consider the said aspect of the matter while taking a decision with regard to the Petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon a careful examination of the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto, so also in view of the limited nature of the prayer made in this writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

consider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the order of the Tribunal dated 6^th January, 1992 passed in by the Tribunal in O.A. No.973 of 1989 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition as well as the orders passed in similar other cases referred hereinabove and relied upon by the State Counsel as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the State that the resolution dated 22^nd January, 1965 under Annexure-4 is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid direction within a period of two months from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1 along with the certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention here that the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider

¶32

the case of the Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken thereon shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶35

Debasis

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: PA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2023 14:33:07

Chandramani Padhihary v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramani Padhihary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagaban Behera Vs Vir Vikarm Yadav, I.A.S.

Kirtan Raut Vs Satyabrata Sahu, I.A.S.

Suresh Ch. Behera Vs Satyabrata Sahu, I.A.S.

Abhaya Kumar Mallik Vs the Chairman ,Ocac,Bbsr

Biraraj Bag Vs State of Odisha

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Union of India