Gitismita Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3890 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No. 12378 of 2023

            Gitismita Sahu                             ....              Petitioner
                                                      Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Advocate
                                           -versus-
            State of Odisha and others                 ....       Opposite Parties
                                                            Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                20.04.2023
   01.      1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
            (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to;

i. Admit and allow the writ petition of the petitioner and issue notice to the Opp. Parties; ii. After hearing the parties, to quash/set-aside the order No.263, dated 22.02.2021, passed by the Ex- Administrator, Badasahi LAMPCS Ltd. under Annexure-1;

iii. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction to the Opp. Parties, especially the Opp. Party Nos.3 to 6 to reinstate the petitioner revoking the suspension order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Ex-Administrator of Badasahi LAMPCS Ltd.

// 2 //

and extend all consequential benefits with releasing subsistence allowance and salary in favour of the petitioner within time limit;

AND iv. To pass such other orders/directions as deemed fit and proper."

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner wants to make a fresh representation before the authority concerned with a direction from this Court to the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.

5. Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection if the Petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within the stipulated period of time.

6. Considering such submission and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.6 within two weeks from today and in the event such representation is filed before the Opposite Party No.6, the Opposite Party No.6 shall do well to consider and dispose of the same keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., reported in 2015 (I) OLR (SC) - 602 and K. Sukhendar

// 3 //

Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (1999) 2 ATT (SC) 344 within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of representation. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a prayer for releasing subsistence allowance before the authority concerned and, if the rule permits the same, the authority concerned shall sanctioned and disbursed the same in favour of the Petitioner as per Rule-24 of LAMPCS Staff Service Rules.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis