Binayak Bisoi Vs Central Silk Board, Banglore

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P.K.Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. J.N.Panda, learned CGC for the Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶22

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

¶23

“In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this WRIT application, call for record and be pleased to;

¶24

Page 1 of 3.

¶25

a) Issue direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners treating them at par with other similarly situated employees in compliance to order of the Hon'ble High Court especially when they have completed more than 30 years in same footing. And also direct the O.P.to grant all consequential benefits as admissible under the law.

¶26

b) Direct the O.P. that pending consideration of their cases they shall be paid current salary as per their seniority under ANNEXURE-1.

¶27

c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties not to take any coercive action against the petitioners during pendency of the writ application.

¶28

d) Issue any appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the benefits claimed by the present petitioner in the present writ application have already been extended by the Opposite parties in case of the similarly situated persons. However, the case of the present petitioner has not been considered and being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite parties, the petitioner has compelled the authority before filing the present writ application.

¶30

Mr. P.K.Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. along with Mr. J.N.Panda, learned C.G.C. appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that they have no specific instruction with regard to grant of such benefits in respect of any similarly situated employees. However, he further contended that in the event this Court directs the Opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that similarly situated employees have been extended such benefits, they will have no objection to the same.

¶31

Considering such submission made by the learned

¶32

Page 2 of 3.

¶33

counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into view the limited nature of grievance of the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Opposite party No.3 by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite party No.3 shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law and taking into consideration the order passed by tis Court under Annexure-4 and that fact that similar benefits have been extended in favour of similarly situated employees under Annexure-5 series and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks from today. Final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

¶34