Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Prasanna Kumar Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 10 September, 1997

Adwita Prasad Parida vs Doordarshan on 14 May, 2019

In the Memo of Citations, the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdish SinghKhehar [2016 (II)ILR-CUT-1127 (SC) on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Dr.Prasana Kumar Mishra vs. State of Orissa & ors. [2016 (I) ILR-CUT 373] and the order of this Tribunal dated 12.03.2018 in T.A.Nos.34/2009, 4/2013 & 5/2013 in the matter of regularization. On the other hand, the respondents in their written notes of submission have brought on record that one Lilima Singh, who was at Sl.No.14 of the merit list, had approached this Tribunal in O.A.No.744 of 2016 and this Tribunal directed treat the said OA as representation and to consider the same. Her case having been rejected on the ground that she is at Sl.No.14, she again approached this Tribunal in O.A.No.87/2007. This Tribunal in its order dated 21.09.2010 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant keeping in mind the observation made and decisions so arrived at upon such consideration, should be communicated to the applicant in a well-reasoned order. Being aggrieved, the respondents approached the Hon'ble Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) 5 O.A.No.260/430/2012 No.15703/2011 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 12.09.2011 has stated the operation of order dated 21.09.2010 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.87/2007 and the said writ petition is sub judice by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitali Panda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, she was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While she was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. It is further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, she is entitled to be regularized and as such, her services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 5 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, her services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-16 dated 2012.2021.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Subrata Narayan Das vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, he was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While he was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. He further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to be regularized and as such, his services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law 5 within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, his services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-9 dated 20.12.2021.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Debi Prasad Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, he was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While he was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. He further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to be regularized and as such, his services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 5 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, his services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-17.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Madhumita Pal vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, she was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While she was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. It is further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, she is entitled to be regularized and as such, her services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 5 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, her services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-9 dated 2012.2021.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Sudhir Kumar Mahanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, he was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While he was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. He further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to be regularized and as such, his services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 5 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, his services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-16.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Subidita Nanda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, she was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While she was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. It is further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, she is entitled to be regularized and as such, her services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 5 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, her services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-16 dated 2012.2021.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Dr. Ranjan Kumar vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, he was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While he was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. He further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to be regularized and as such, his services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law 5 within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, his services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-8 dated 20.12.2021.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Anjana Mohanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 January, 2022

Accordingly, she was given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of Professor. While she was so continuing, an advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along with others challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing that the services of the petitioner along with others shall not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing till date. It is further contended that since the petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of service, she is entitled to be regularized and as such, her services have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 5 01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite party-University to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of four months. Against the said order, BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, her services are entitled to be regularized instead of floating advertisement under Annexure-16 dated 2012.2021.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document
1   2 Next