Ananda Prasad Acharaya Vs State of Orissa

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.

¶16

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

¶17

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ applicable and direct to the Opposite parties to fix the grade pay of the petitioner amounting of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f., 01.01.2014, as per clause-10 of the Govt. Resolution dated-06.02.2013 under Anneuxre-1 series from the date of competition of 30 years of service, and the decision passed in State of Odisha Versus Biharilal Barik decided by this Hon'ble Court, in W.P.C No-2831/2016, disposed of on 27.06.2016, (Dairy No (s). 20358/2017, although the

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

similarly situated persons have already avail the aforesaid benefit, as deemed just and proper as deemed just and proper.

¶20

And further direct to the Opp.parties to pay the service and arrear benefits as per the fixation of grade pay in pursuant to the resolution dated 06.02.2013 under Anneuxre-1 Series .”

¶21

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 Divisional Forest Officer, Berhampur (Territorial Division), Berhampur, Ganjam, Opposite Party No.6 under Annexure-6. 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.6 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 within a stipulated period of time.

¶22

Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.6, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

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.6 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha-vrs.-Biharilal Barik decided by this Court in S.L.P. Diary No.20358 of 2017 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.6 shall do well to dispose of the

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.6 be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶26

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

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶29

Anil

¶30

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Feb-2025 16:33:02

Ananda Prasad Acharaya v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Prasad Acharaya v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susil Mallick @ Sushila Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Subhadra Chhatria Vs State of Odisha

Sumitra Panna Vs State of Odisha

Pravakar Digal Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Panda @ Jagannatha Panda Vs State of Odisha

Nityananda Naik Vs State of Odisha