Disposed

Bhaskar Chandra Das v. District Judge,Ganjam

Orissa HC17 Mar 2023WP(C)/9802/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition filed by a Process Server without expressing an opinion on the merits. The Court directed the District Judge, Ganjam, to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this

Bhaskar Chandra Das Vs District Judge,Ganjam — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9802 of 2015

¶2

Bhaskar Chandra Das

¶3

….. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate Vs.

¶5

….. District Judge, Ganjam, Opposite Parties Berhampur & Another

¶6

State Counsel

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN

¶9

ORDER

¶10

17.03.2023

¶11

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 01. 2. Heard.

¶12

The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following

¶13

prayer:-

¶14

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously bep leased to issue a writ in appropriate nature quashing the order of reversion dated 02.04.2015j communicated vide memo No.02.05.2015;

¶15

And further this Hon’ble Court may graciously be leased to direct the Opp. Parties more particularly Opp. Party No.1 to allow the petitioner to continue as Process Server in receipt of the salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 2750-70-3800-75- Rs.4400/- as has been revised in terms of the Resolution of Law Department dated 10.10.2008 in implementation of the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission and the order dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

¶16

And

¶17

Any other order/orders or direction/directions be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner;

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall duty bound as ever pray.”

¶20

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting their grievances, the Petitioner has made representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-8 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶21

As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-8, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

¶23

Alok/Laxmikant

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Bhaskar Chandra Das v. District Judge,Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Chandra Das v. District Judge,Ganjam

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

Dharam Singh Majhi Vs State

Chanchala Kissan Vs Dwarasuni Thakurani

Mohan Ch.Sa Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

M/S Montessori Agrotech Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Mishra Vs Commissioner of Excise,Cuttack