Disposed¶22

Sadashiva Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 May 2024WP(C)/12275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.12275 of 2024; Sadashiva Naik v. State of Odisha and Others; decided 17.05.2024 by Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. Retired employee sought pension, DCRG, unutilized leave salary and commuted value of pension with interest on delayed payment; representation (Annexure-4) pending. Court, without deciding merits, issued a time-bound direction (three months) to opposite party No.1 to decide the representation in accordance with law and communicate the result; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.1 to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within three months of production of a certified copy of the order and to communicate the result to the petitioner. ¶22

Sadashiva Naik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.12275 of 2024

¶3

Sadashiva Naik

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

State Counsel

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

17.05.2024

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

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass a writ in appropriate nature directing the respondents to sanction and disburse pension, DCRG, Unutilized Leave Salary and Commuted value of Pension in favour of the petitioner who has retired since 30.06.2016 forthwith on consideration of the pension papers duly submitted with interest on the delayed payment at least from the date of submission of pension papers forthwith or within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-4 to the Writ

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

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.

¶21

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, 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.

¶22

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶24

Basudev

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-May-2024 17:27:39

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Sadashiva Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiva Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Srustidhar Rout Vs Aravind Agarwal, I.A.S.

Bijay Kumar Rout Vs Aswathy S., I.A.S.

Bhimsen Sahoo Vs Aswathy S., I.A.S.

Jalandhar Rout Vs Ouat, Bbsr, Khurda

Jitendra Narayan Samanta Vs Aravind Agarwal,I.a.S.

Sabita Tripathy Vs Pramod Kumar Sarangi, D.E.O, Phulbani, Kandhamal