Saraswati Upadhyay Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr.S.K.Patra, learned Standing Counsel for Accountant General (A&E), Odisha. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance it is therefore prayed that your Lordship be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI, calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the prayer made in the writ petition be not allowed and upon their showing no cause or showing insufficient cause, the Rule be made absolute and

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

appropriate writ/ directions be issued directing the State Opp. Parties to:-

¶21

i. To re assess and calculate afresh the entitlements of the petitioner towards regularization of her service issued vide office order (MEMO) No-8841 dt 09/12/2013 of the Director of Family Welfare (Opp. Party No-2) and after recalculation the amount so finalized shall be disbursed to the petitioner with an interest @ 18% per annum from the date of her retirement i.e. 31.10.2010.

¶22

ii. Further be pleased to direct the State Opp. Party No-1 to take appropriate legal and administrative action against the Opp. Party No-2 to 4 for their deliberate inaction in disposal of the grievance of the petitioner with regard to regularization of service and for disbursement of retiral benefits.

¶23

iii. Further be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.2 and 3 to refixation of her scale of pay under ORSP Rules, 2008 and release all other consequential service and financial benefits.

¶24

iv. Writ petition be allowed with exemplary cost. And pass any such other orders as may be

¶25

deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justices.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed on 20.05.1974 by the order of the Director Health & Family Planning, Odisha. On 10.06.1974, the Petitioner joined as ANM and posted at the PHC, Hatbharandi, Koraput. While working as such, on 12.01.2004 the Medical Officerin-Charge, CHC, Algum, Puri issued a letter calling for the service particulars of the Petitioner for regularization of her service. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2010.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that

¶28

Page 2 of 4.

¶29

although the Petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.2010, however, till date she has not been sanctioned and disbursed with the pensionary benefits. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions for grant of pensionary benefits. The final representation that was filed before the Opposite Party No.1 is on 25.03.2024 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. He further contended that no final decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner as of now. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that although he does not have any specific instruction in the matter, however, in the event any representation filed by the Petitioner as has been stated in the writ application is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1, he will have no objection, if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶31

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-7 dated 25.03.2024, if the same is still pending, strictly in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the

¶32

Page 3 of 4.

¶33

Petitioner. It is needless to mention here that the representation of the Petitioner shall be considered and & disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶36

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶37

Anil

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4. Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2025 11:25:16

Saraswati Upadhyay v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Upadhyay 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nimai Charan Behera Vs Manoj Ahuja, I.A.S.

Simanchal Mohapatra Vs Aswathy S., IAS

Ratikanta Mohanta Vs Mahendra Nath Samal,Ceo,Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bikramjit Mangaraj Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Gartia Vs State of Odisha

Saudamini Satpathy Vs State of Odisha