Orissa High Court
Jalandhar Das vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 10 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.376 of 2025
Jalandhar Das .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K, Swain, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No 10.01.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
allowed;
AND
A) A writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may
be issued quashing the stipulation made in
Clause:3 of the office order No.5639 dated
04.03.2016 issued by the State Government
under Annexure:4 so also the office order
No.10972 dated 18.03.2016 issued by the
Director, Higher Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar under Annexure:5 that the arrear
claim of the petitioner shall be guided as per
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
the case of Union of India and another Vs.
Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648
and necessary direction may be made to the
opposite parties to release the arrear salary of
the petitioner for the period from 01.06.1993 to
16.06.2011 keeping in view the ratio decided in
the case of Rashmi Ranjan Das and another
Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C)
No.20713 of 2016 disposed of on 14.03.2013), in
the case of Kishore Chandra Majhi Vs. State
of Odisha and another (W.P.(C) No.22554 of
// 2 //
2017 disposed of on 14.03.2023) and in the case
of Hara Prasad Ray Vs. State of Odisha and
others (W.P.(C) No.15658 of 2020 and batch of
cases, disposed of on 21.04.2023), within a time
to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
B) And any other order/orders or direction/
directions may be issued so as to give complete
relief to the petitioner;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall
as in duty bound remain ever pray."
4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner
states that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a
representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-8 and the
same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time,
to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.
5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition
directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed
by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 within a period of three (3)
months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
