Disposed

Ramesh Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Apr 2023WP(C)/9569/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court did not express opinion on merits but directed opposite party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner's petition under OCS (Pension) Rule 1992 regarding enrolment and GPF allotment within three months. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner's petition within three months and communicate the result.

Ramesh Kumar Naik 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.9569 of 2023

¶3

Ramesh Kumar Naik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Laxmi Kanta Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

11.04.2023

¶13

Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

<It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to enroll the name of the petitioner under OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 and allotment of GPF Number in his favour as per G.P.F. Rule 1938 taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in between Malayananda Sethy Versus State of Orissa and Others reported in 2022 II OLR (SC) 1 as well as the order passed by the opp. party no.1 dated 04.01.2023 under Annexure-7 in similar matter and after hearing the parties be pleased to direct the opp. parties to enroll the name of the

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

petitioner under OCS (Pension) Rule 1992 and allotment of GPF Number in his favour, within a date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.=

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, he 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.

¶20

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 taking into account Annexure-7, 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.

¶21

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶23

Basudev

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Ramesh Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Naik 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

Susanta Ku.Sahoo Vs Basen Hansadah

Debiprasad Mandhata Vs State of Odisha

Bijan Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Begum Benazin Bibi Vs Rupa Rosan Sahoo, IAS

Muralidhar Sahoo Vs Aswathy S., IAS

Jitendra Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha