Madhabo Ch.Mohankudo v. State And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P. (C) No. 21010 of 2010 Madhabo Ch. Mohankudo .....

Petitioner Mr. Amitav Das, Advocate Vs.

State of Odisha and others .....

Opposite parties Mr. S.N. Nayak, ASC Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Adv (O.P.3)

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

05.01.2022 Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel for opposite party no.3. 3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize the promotion granted to him to the post of Sr. Assistant with effect from 01.02.1980 and to the post of Head Asst. with effect from 11.08.2006, i.e. the dates from which his juniors/ counter parts have been regularized and also to grant the consequential benefits of salary as due and admissible to him with effect from 01.07.2007, the date from which he was asked to hold full charge of Head Asst. in addition to his own assignment.

4.

Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counter affidavit has also been filed by the opposite party no.3, in which it has been stated that the petitioner's case has been recommended vide Annexure-A/3 dated 11.09.2006 and Annexure-C/3 series dated 20.06.2007 to the Government, but no decision has been taken till date. 5.

Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that, if the matter is still pending before the authority, let the authority apply their mind and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

6.

Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 states that the grievance of the petitioner has already been recommended by the opposite party no.3 to the Government vide Annexure-A/3 and Annexure-C/3 to the counter, which are still pending and no decision has been taken thereof.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, since the recommendation of the case of the petitioner by the opposite party no.3 to opposite party no.1 is still pending for consideration as stated above, let the same be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order. 8.

With the above observation/direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

9.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE