Disposed

Manoj Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Dec 2023WPC(OA)/1305/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, without expressing an opinion on merits, disposed of the writ petition directing the State to consider the petitioner's representation regarding regularization of his appointment as Assistant Engineer Civil and pass an order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order within three months.

Manoj Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) (OA) No.1305 of 2015

¶3

Manoj Kumar Nayak

Petitioner

None

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA

¶9

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

20.12.2023 Order No

¶12

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶13

2. None appeared for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶14

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶15

“(a) Let the aforesaid O.A be admitted.

¶16

(b) Notice be issued to the respondents and after hearing to the respondents concerned direction be issued to the Respondent No.1 & 2 to regularize the appointment of the applicant as Assistant Engineer Civil with appropriate up-gradation as per the cadre restructure.

¶17

(c) To quash advertisement published under Annexure-9, and

¶18

(d) Pass any order / orders / direction / directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper”.

¶19

4 . In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievance, Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-12 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶20

5 . As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

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-12 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶23

6. Since it is contended that the claim of the Petitioner as made in the writ petition is covered by an order passed by the Tribunal on 16.05.2018 in O.A. No.1036(C) of 2016 and another, which has also been implemented in the meantime, the relevancy and effect of the said order and its compliance be taken into consideration while considering the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-12.

¶24

Subrat

¶25

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 22-Dec-2023 16:53:25

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Manoj Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Nayak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasananda Basti Vs State of Odisha

Damodar Hati Vs State of Odisha

Pranjali Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Supriya Nanda Vs Aswasti S., I.A.S.

Ratha Natha Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Basant Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha