Arakhita Panigrahi v. State And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P (C) No.24653 of 2013 Arakhita Panigrahi (since dead) represented through LRs .....

Petitioner Mr. S.Patra, Advocate Vs.

State of Odisha and others .....

Opposite parties Mr. S.N.Nayak, ASC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

16.03.2022 I.A. No. 527 of 2022 Order No.

04.

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

2.

This application has been filed seeking substitution of legal representatives of deceased petitioner.

3.

Considering the grounds taken in the application and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, prayer for substitution is allowed. Consolidated cause title, bringing legal representatives of the deceased petitioner on record, be filed by tomorrow (17.03.2022). 4.

I.A. stands disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (SAVITRI RATHO) JUDGE W.P (C) No.24653 of 2013 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order No.

05.

2.

Heard Mr. S.Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.990 (C) of 2000 and batch, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the O.As. filed by the respective applicants on the ground of limitation keeping in view different decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court as well as the earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 24.06.2010 passed in O.A. No.404/2000 and batch. 4.

Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar matters had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P. (C) No.19550 of 2011 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2021 by extending the benefit to the petitioner therein in terms of the office memorandum dated 6.3.1990. As a consequence thereof, the benefit has also been extended to similarly situated persons vide office memorandum no. 4098/21 dated 27.08.2021.

5.

It is also contended that the learned Single Bench of this Court, which was presided over by one of us (Dr. Justice B.R.Sarangi) in W.P.(C) No.2612 of 2022 (Abhaya Kumar Mohanty v. Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, H & UD Department and others), while disposing of the writ petition, directed for extension of similar benefits to the petitioner therein. In view of such fact, the present petitioner should not be discriminated and should be granted the benefit as due and admissible in accordance with law. 6.

Learned counsel for the State contended that since there was inordinate delay in approaching the tribunal, the Tribunal is well justified in passing the order impugned and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since similarly situated persons have been extended with the benefits in W.P. (C) No. 19550 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.2612 of 2022, and the petitioner stands on similar footing, the

benefit is admissible to him taking into consideration the office memorandum dated 6.3.1990 and also implementation order passed by the authority vide office order no. 4098/21 dated 27.08.2021. 8.

Accordingly, the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.990 (C) of 2000 is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to extend the benefit to the petitioner in terms of orders of this Court passed in W.P. (C) No. 19550 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.2612 of 2022 taking into consideration the office memorandum dated 6.3.1990 and implementation order passed by the authority vide office order no. 4098/21 dated 27.08.2021. 9.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Jagadev/Sukanta (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (SAVITRI RATHO) JUDGE