Disposed

Niranjan Rout v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC22 Nov 2023WP(C)/9714/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition by the petitioners, who sought VRS benefits and salary arrears. It held them in similar footing to petitioners in a coordinate bench case referenced by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court granted liberty to file a detailed representation to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file a detailed representation before the State Government within three weeks for consideration within three months.

Niranjan Rout Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9714 of 2013

¶3

Niranjan Rout and others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Nikhil Pratap, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

22.11.2023

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

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay their balance dues under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as mentioned in Para-12 and Anneure-7 and 8 Series along with unpaid salary from 30.9.2001 to 15.7.2003 calculating the same under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and further for a direction to the Opposite Parties to deposit the amount of

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

EPF dues forthwith.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioners does not press the prayer No.3 of the writ petition.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a similar matter came up before a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004 (Madan Mohan Sahoo and others v. State of Orissa and others). A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.1.2013 disposed of the said writ petition by referring to the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12367 of 2004 disposed of on 16.12.2011 ( Sk. Alimuddin and others v. State of Orissa and others ) and accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of with an observation that in case the Petitioners file representations before the Opposite Party No.1 and in such event their representations shall be considered within a period of three months thereof. The aforesaid order dated 8.1.2013 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.2976 of 2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.02.2014 has been pleased to dismiss the S.L.P.(C) and have thereby confirmed the order dated 8.1.2013. Since the Petitioners stand in similar footing with the Petitioners W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he will have no grievance in the event the present writ petition is disposed of in the light of the order dated 8.1.2013.

¶21

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that there is

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

slight difference between the present case and the case that was involved in W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004. He further contended that in the W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004 the Official Liquidator was looking after properties of the closed mill and, therefore, this Court had directed the Official Liquidator to consider the case of the Petitioners for grant of VRS benefits. So far the present Petitioners are concerned, the Petitioners have prayed for a direction to State Government to consider their cases. In such view of the matter, it is stated before this Court that the present writ petition stands on a different factual basis than the W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004.

¶24

Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that, so far the present Petitioners are concerned, they stand in similar footing with the Petitioners who were before this Court in W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004. The basis of the claim in both the cases is almost identical and the relief sought is for payment of part of the VRS benefits and arrear salary. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to come to an conclusion that the present Petitioners stand in a similar footing with the Petitioners who were involved in W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004. Further, keeping in view the order dated 8.1.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.12365 of 2004, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the State Government by filing a detailed representation taking

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

therein all the grounds along with supporting documents in support of their claim within a period of three weeks from today. In the event such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking order keeping in view the benefit granted to the similar situated employees pursuant to order dated 8.1.2013 within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks thereafter.

¶27

Debasis

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 25-Nov-2023 18:16:54

Niranjan Rout v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Rout v. State and Ors.

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

Suryamani Das Vs State of Odisha

Chema Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Behera Vs State of Odisha

Nirtar Employees Uni Vs Joint Secy,Disabled

Sudarshan Barik Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd

Debendranath Samal Vs State of Odisha