Muni Achari @ Muni vs Govt. Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8784 Ori

                                     1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   W.P.(C) No.24528 OF 2021

Muni Achari @ Muni                         .....                 Petitioner
Kumari Achari
                                                 Mr. K.C. Rath, Advocate
                                  Vs.
Govt. of Odisha & Ors.                     .....           Opposite parties

                                                     Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

24.08.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. Heard Mr. K.C. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to bring the petitioner under the coverage of Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 prior to its amendment, being appointed between the period 01.01.2005 to 17.09.2005, and may also be allowed to subscribe for GPF under the G.P.F. (O) Rules, 1938 prior to its amendment as per the ratio decided in the case of Anand Dash v. State of Odisha, 2014 ILR-CUT-459 which has been upheld by the apex Court in SLP Nos. 35462-35464 of 2014 decided on 09.03.2018 and also keeping in view the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sabita Mohapatra (O.A. No. 2501 of 2013 disposed of on 29.09.2014) with all consequential benefits within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before the opposite party no.1, which

may be considered within a stipulated time.

5. In view of the aforesaid limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no.1 ventilating his grievance within a period of two weeks. If such representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the opposite party no.1 in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter keeping in view the judgments in Anand Dash (Supra) and Sabita Mohapatra (supra).

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE