AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 290 wordsDr B. R. Sarangi, J
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties no.1 & 2 to take prompt action in taking account to his continuous service
as Secretary of Gram panchayat since, 1994 to 2004 and so also his continuous service of VLW/PEO since 2004 to till his date of retirement i.e. up to
2024, in qualifying the period of more than 25 years of service to be eligible as peer the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 keeping in view the
judgment rendered by the apex Court in V. Sukumarm vrs. State of Kerala in Civil Appeal No.3984 of 2010 disposed of on 26.08.2020.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievances, the petitioner has made representation to opposite party
no.2 vide Annexure-2 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition
directing opposite party no.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law
within a period of three months from the date of production of authenticated/certified copy this order.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order
available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide
Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020, as modified by Court’s notice no. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.