PURNA PRAVA ROUL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ application, inter alia, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.1999 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 1558(C) of 1999 and the order dated 15.09.1998 passed in Review Petition No. 58(C) of 1998, which had been filed against the order passed in O.A. No. 317(C) of 1998.

(2.) THE reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ application are reproduced below : Under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order passed in Review Application No. 58/C/1998 on 15.9.1998, order passed in O.A. No. 1558/C/1999 on 25.8.1999 and the order passed by the OP No. 3 in Annexure -12 on 5.7.1 999; And further be pleased to hold that the petitioner has been continuing in the post of Asst. Storekeeper rightly; And further to direct the Ops not to interfere with the appointment of the petitioner as Asst. Store Keeper; And further to direct the Ops to fix the pay of the petitioner as per the Rules, 1989, 1990 and thereafter and pay the petitioner her increment as due; And further be pleased to direct to pay the petitioner all her service and financial benefits retrospectively; And further be pleased to pay the petitioner the litigation cost for the humuliation and harassment due to the inaction of the Ops; And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper; And further be pleased to allow the writ with costs; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

(3.) IT appears that the Tribunal, while passing the order dated 15.09.1998 in the above -mentioned review petition, has referred to the statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate that he had already sent a proposal to the Government for moving this Court against the order of the Tribunal against which the review had been filed. Therefore, the Tribunal did not prefer to adjudicate upon the matter and disposed of the O.A. with the observation that it would be proper to wait for the decision of this Court since the petitioner's grievance in the O.A., which arises out of the direction given in an earlier O.A., can also be raised before this Court and the petitioner would be a necessary party to the writ petition.