Disposed¶20

Sasmita Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 May 2024WP(C)/2253/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.2253 of 2023, Sasmita Sahoo v. State of Odisha; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 06.05.2024; Block Grant Institutions; teaching and non-teaching staffs; other service benefits; compassionate appointment; W.A. No.810 of 2021; W.P.(C) No.36054 of 2020; W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020; W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020; Annexure-7 order dated 10.08.2021 quashed; matter remitted to Opposite Party No.1; two months; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure-7) quashed; matter remitted to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020, within two months from receipt of this order. ¶20

Sasmita Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether Opposite Party No.1 took the decision on the petitioner's claim as directed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition (order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.(C) No.36054 of 2020). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Opposite Party No.1 has not taken the decision as directed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The ground on which the petitioner's claim was rejected (pendency of W.A. No.810 of 2021 relating to compassionate appointment, whereas the petitioner seeks other service benefits) is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶19

Key takeaways

The order dated 10.08.2021 passed under Annexure-7 is quashed.ratio¶19
While quashing the impugned order, the matter is remitted to Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision in the light of the order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition challenging the Government's order dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure-7) rejecting the petitioner's claim for other service benefits on the ground that an order in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 was pending in W.A. No.810 of 2021 (which concerned compassionate appointment to teaching and non-teaching staffs of Block Grant Institutions). Holding that Opposite Party No.1 had not taken the decision as directed by the Court's earlier order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.(C) No.36054 of 2020, and that the ground of rejection was unsustainable, the Court quashed the order dated 10.08.2021 and remitted the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to decide afresh in the light of the order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020, within two months of receipt of the order. Writ Petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2253 of 2023

Sasmita Sahoo

…. Petitioner

Mr. B. Das, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.11

06.05.2024

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

¶14

2. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State-Opp. Parties

¶15

3. The Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.36054 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 while disposing the matter directed Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner. It is contended that opp. Party No.3 on the ground that order passed in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 is pending before this Court in W.A. No.810 of 2021, rejected petitioners’ claim vide impugned order. It is contended that W.A. No.810 of 2021 relates to the direction of this Court for

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

providing compassionate appointment to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of Block Grant Institutions. But the prayer of the petitioners is with regard to grant of other service benefits. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶18

4. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶19

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the direction issued by this Court on 21.12.2020, it is the view of this Court that the Opposite Party No.1 has not taken a decision as directed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. The ground on which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected as per considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 10.08.2021 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision in the light of the order passed on 28.09.2021 by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Judge

¶23

Digitally Signed sangita Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 07-May-2024 17:40:01

¶24

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶25

Page 2 of 2