Saroj Kumar Tanty vs. State Of Odisha
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's grievance was limited to the non-consideration of his application for compassionate appointment despite submitting the relevant documents. The Court acknowledged the State's submission that if the additional information was provided, the authority could proceed. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Opposite Party No. 2 to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receiving the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case itself. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied as the matter pertained to compassionate appointment.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to Opposite Party No. 2, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & GST, Rourkela Range, Sundargarh, to make a final decision on his application for appointment under a rehabilitation assistance scheme. The petitioner's father, who was in employment, had died prematurely. The petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate appointment, but the authorities were delaying the decision. By a letter dated 28.07.2020 (Annexure-9), the authorities sought additional information, which the petitioner claims to have promptly provided. However, no further action had been taken. The petitioner approached the High Court due to this delay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct Opposite Party No. 2 to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment within a stipulated period, given the delay in decision-making? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite submitting all necessary documents, including additional information requested on 28.07.2020, the authorities were unduly delaying the consideration of his application for compassionate appointment. This delay necessitated the intervention of the Court. Revenue/State's Contention: The State, through its counsel, contended that if the petitioner had indeed supplied the additional information as requested in the letter dated 28.07.2020, the concerned authority could consider it and pass the necessary order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
23.11.2020
The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State opposite parties.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.2-Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & GST, Rourkela Range, Sundargarh to take final decision on the application of the petitioner for providing appointment under rehabilitation assistance scheme as per rules, within a stipulated period.
Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment due to premature death of his father while in employment. Although the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment, but somehow or other the authorities are delaying the same and finally vide Annexure-9 dated 28.07.2020 though they sought for additional information, which the petitioner has already complied immediately, but till date no steps have been taken in that regard. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ pe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.