Disposed¶20

Laxman Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Jun 2024WP(C)/14083/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.4 to consider the petitioner's grievance in light of the Sub-Committee recommendation (Annexure-1) and take a decision thereon, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶20

Laxman Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party No.4 should be directed to implement the Sub-Committee decision of 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-1) on enhancement of salary and benefits for the petitioner, an employee of the Blood Bank, or alternatively to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 10th May, 2024 within a stipulated time.

¶13

Court's answer

Since a recommendation has been made by the Sub-Committee (Annexure-1), the petitioner's grievance should be looked into by opposite party No.4 in accordance therewith within a stipulated period, which would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.4 to consider the petitioner's grievance taking into account the recommendation of the Sub-Committee at Annexure-1 and to take a decision thereon, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Coram: Justice R.K. Pattanaik) disposed of W.P.(C) No.14083 of 2024 (Laxman Behera v. State of Odisha and Others) by order dated 19.06.2024. The petitioner, working as a contractual employee, sought enforcement of the Sub-Committee recommendation dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-1) concerning enhancement of salary and other benefits as an employee of the Odisha Blood Bank, M.K.C.G, M.C.H, Berhampur, which had concluded there was no financial crunch and no risk in a 30% increase, or alternatively disposal of his representation dated 10th May, 2024 (Annexure-3). The Court directed opposite party No.4 to consider the grievance in accordance with the Annexure-1 recommendation and take a decision thereon, preferably within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner's related claim for regularization of service in W.P.(C) No.19215 of 2023 remains pending.

¶1

IN T H E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC K

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14083 of 2024

¶3

Laxman Behera

¶4

…. P e titioner Mr.S. Mohanty (1), A d vocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha a nd Others

¶7

…. Opposit e parties. Mr.N.K. Praha r aj, AGA

¶8

CORA M : MR. J U STICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

19.06.2024

1. Heard l e arned counsel for respective parties.

¶13

Instant w rit petition has been filed by the petitio n er for a direction to op p osite party No.4 to implement the decisi o n of the Sub-Committee in its proceeding dated 27^th April, 2018 under Annexure-1 or t o dispose of the representation submitted by them dated 10^th May, 2024 within a time stipulated.

¶14

Learne d counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner wor k s as a contractual employee. The plea of the petitioner, as further submitted, is with regard to enhanc e ment of salary and enti t lement to other benefits as the employe e of the Blood Bank in v iew of the recommendation of the Sub-C o mmittee dated 27^th April , 2018 (Annexure-1). It is also brought to t h e notice of the Court that the petitioner and others have approa c hed this Court in W.P.(C ) No.19215 of 2023 seeking regularization o f service and the same is p ending disposal.

¶15

Pa g e 1 of 2

¶16

Perused Annexure-3 i.e. representation of the p etitioner with regard to e n titlement to enhanced salary and other be n efits.

¶17

As per A nnexure-1, it is made to understand that the SubCommittee had its meeting held on 27^th April, 2018 and p roposed recommendatio n s as at para-5 with a conclusion that Odis h a Blood Bank, M.K.C.G, M.C.H, Berhampur does not have any financial crunch and suc h enhancement shall have no risk, if in c a se, it is increased by 30 % .

¶18

Consid e ring the above facts and submissions of learned counsel for res p ective parties and since, in the meantim e , such a recommendatio n has been made by the Sub-Committ e e as at Annexure-1, the Court is of the view that the grievanc e of the petitioner shou l d be looked into by opposite party No.4 in accordance ther e with within a stipulated period as the sa m e would serve the purpo s e and meet the ends of justice.

¶19

7. Hence, it is ordered.

¶20

In the r esult, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to op p osite party No.4 to consider the grievan c e of the petitioner takin g into account the recommendation of t he SubCommittee as a t Annexure-1 and to take a decision there o n at the earliest preferab l y within a period of three months from th e date of receipt of a cop y of this order.

¶21

Urgent c opy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTCRojina Date: 21-Jun-2024 10:51:56

¶24

P a ge 2 of 2

Laxman Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Behera 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

Pratima Mohapatra Vs Sub-Collector,Balas

Dayanidhi Dehury Vs State of Odisha

Pratibha Kumari Baral Vs Janardan Pattnaik

M/S. Choudhury Medical Store, Bbsr Vs Union of India

Sangram Keshari Parida Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha