Debaraj Meher vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8148 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             W.P.(C) No.21696 of 2021
            Debaraj Meher                     .....          Petitioner
                                              Mr.K.K.Swain, Advocate
                                      - Versus-

            State of Odisha and others.        .....      Opposite parties
                                               Mr.D.Mohapatra, Standing
                                               Counsel, S & ME.
                        CORAM:
                            JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH


                                      ORDER

04.08.2021

Order No. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

02.

2. The writ petition involves the following prayer.

"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ application may be allowed;

And

a) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit of G.P.F. and pension under the Orisaa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and further a declaration may be made making him covered under the said Pension Rules of 1992 prior to its amendment in the year 2005 and to treat the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak by taking into account the date of advertisement instead of date of joining, as per the ratio decided in the case of Union RKS of India and Ors. Vrs.N.R. Parmar and Ors. reported in 2012 (13) SCC 340 and Harbans Lal V.

the State of Punjab and Ors., (CWP No.2371 of 2010, decided on 31.08.2010) by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.23578 of 2012 (SLP(C) No.18901 of 2011, disposed of on 30.07.2012 (State of Punjab and Ors.Vrs. Harbans Lal) and also in the case of Jeewan Lata Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,(CWP No.10238 of 2017 ( O & M), decided on 10.05.2019) with all consequential benefits;

And

b) Any other order/orders or direction/directions be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners.

3. For the nature of relief sought for and for pendency of the representation at the instance of the petitioner vide Annexure-3 on the selfsame grounds, this writ petition is not entertainable at this stage and the same stands disposed of directing opposite party No.1 to look into the request of the petitioner, vide Annexure-3 and take a lawful decision in the matter taking into account the applicability of the judgment cited hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one and half month from the date of communication of this order so also copy of the writ petition by the petitioners.

4. Petitioner has the responsibility to serve copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition so also the copy of the judgments cited supra on the opposite party No.1 within a period of ten days, as undertaken.

5. Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.

(BISWANATH RATH) JUDGE