Dhirendra Kumar Nayak v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 3205 of 2022 Dhirendra Kumar Nayak ....

Petitioner Mr. Brajendra Narayan Mohapatra along with Mr.

Bidyalok Mohapatra, Advocate -versusState of Odisha & Ors.

....

Opp. Parties Mr. D. Mohapatra, Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department

CORAM:

JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No.

ORDER

14.02.2022 01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties in not granting him retiral benefits, which according to him, he is entitled to as per the decision of this Court dated 08.05.2014 in W.P.(C) No.16425 of 2013 in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida vrs. State of Orissa and others. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wishes to approach the authority by making a representation along with all the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances, which is to be disposed of in accordance with law.

It is submitted by Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel that order passed in W.A. No.324 of 2022, which has been filed by the State would have a bearing on the claim of the petitioner. However, any representation that would be made by the petitioner, shall be considered and disposed of by the

// 2 // authority in accordance with law in due time. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without issuing notice to opposite party no.3, with the following order:- The petitioner, if so advised, shall move the appropriate authority by making representation afresh along with all the relevant documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner. The authority on receipt of such representation, shall do well to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order along with copy of the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner.

The order that would be passed by the authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks. The petitioner shall have the liberty to take appropriate follow-up action, as would be available under law, pursuant to the decision to be rendered by the authority. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, in any manner whatsoever.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

RJ (M.S. Sahoo) Judge