CUTTACK, India, Feb. 12 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Jan. 12:
1. This intra-court Appeal filed by the State & its officials seeks to lay challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 20.05.2024, whereby Respondents' W.P.(C) No.12768 of 2024 having been favoured, the following direction has been given:
"9. Taking into consideration the factual background of the case and keeping in view the position of law as has been analysed hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-10 within two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner in terms of the analysis made hereinabove as well as in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case (supra) and the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid time stipulation. In the event it is found by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Petitioner's case is similar to that of Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case (supra) and in the absence of any legal impediment, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to sanction and grant the pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision as has been directed hereinabove. The final decision so taken on such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision."
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants vehemently urges the following grounds for invalidation of the impugned order:
(a) Learned Single Judge grossly erred in allowing the writ petition at the Admission Stage without giving an opportunity of filing the Counter and resisting the same thereafter; thus the impugned order is made sans due opportunity of hearing and therefore, the same being in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set at naught.
(b) Learned Single Judge could not have allowed the writ petition without adverting to Rule 3 read with Rule 18(3) of Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which disentitles persons in casual employment or work-charged establishment and therefore, the impugned order has an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court for setting the same at naught.
(c) The casual employment in work-charged establishment is governed by 1974 Executive Instructions and therefore, no such employee can claim any benefit under the provisions of 1992 Rules, which aspect has not been dealt with even in WP(C) No. 38771 of 2020 between Pradip Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha disposed off by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2021.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2FOr3grCX%2Fnqf%2Bsi5rx3v5E2EHmuXMSREEIByHQqZauN&caseno=WA/975/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010347232025&state_code=11&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
