A. Rama Krishna Achary 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 petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:

¶19

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is_therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the Opp. Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date his counterparts have been regularised

¶20

And further be pleased to direct the Opp.Parties to grant the petitioner all

¶21

Page 1 of 3.

¶22

consequential service and financial benefits.

¶23

Or pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2 which may be considered within a stipulated period of time in accordance with law.

¶25

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that he has no objection if liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.2 and the same is considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.2 ventilating his grievance within a period of two weeks. If such a representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.2, taking into consideration the order under Annexure-7, 8 & 9 within a period of three months from the date of filing representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 shall also take into consideration the law laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and in the case of

¶27

Page 2 of 3.

¶28

S.K. Rout

¶29

Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as in State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and others reported in 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982 and in the case of Sripal and another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad decided on 31^st January, 2025 in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶32

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 3 of 3. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:21:29

A. Rama Krishna Achary v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Rama Krishna Achary 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmiranjan Patsani Vs Govt of India

Anil Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Saumendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Parameswar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Puspaketu Panda Vs Odisha Gramya Bank, Khandagiri

Basanta Kumar Routray Vs Union of India