Abdhut Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

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

¶22

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application notice be issued to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the suspension order dated 23.02.2022 under Annexure-1 shall not be quashed and the Petitioner shall not be reinstated in service as

¶23

Page 1 of 3.

¶24

he was put in suspension for a long period i.e. from 23.02.2022 to till date nearly about three years and if they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause to quash the order dated 23.02.2022 under Annexure-1 and issue writ of mandamus to reinstate the Petitioner in service along with all service and financial benefits.

¶25

And pass appropriate writ/writs, any other order/orders, direction/directions be issued as this Hon’ble Court thinks just and proper;”

¶26

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation before the Executive Officer, Jharsuguda Municipality, Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 within a stipulated period of time.

¶27

Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.3, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶28

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of

¶29

Page 2 of 3.

¶30

certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 in terms of the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury-v.-Union of India, through its Secretary reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389 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 two weeks thereafter.

¶31