Skip to content


Ramakanta Mohanty Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution;Service
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurisdiction Case No. 137 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Ori49
ActsConstitution of India - Article 311
AppellantRamakanta Mohanty
RespondentDivisional Forest Officer and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.N. Das, ;P.K. Das and ;J. Swain, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredJeeva Ratnam v. State of Madras. It
Excerpt:
.....of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v..........order would take effect from 30-12-67. 2. the writ application is accordingly allowed. a writ of mandamus would issue to the opposite parties, directing them to treat the petitioner as continuing in service till 30-12-67 on which date his services were terminated by the order of dismissal.3. the application is allowed with costs. hearing fee rs. 50/- (rupees fifty only).r.n. misra, j. 4. i agree.
Judgment:

G.K. Misra, C.J.

1. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 30-12-67. The Divisional Forest Officer, however, gave retrospective operation to the order of dismissal by saying that the services of Sri Ramakanta Mohanty Forest Guard are dispensed with, with effect from the date of his absconding from head quarters, i.e. from 23-5-66. The only contention urged by Mr. R. N. Das is that the order of dismissal cannot be given retrospective operation. This is concluded by the decision in AIR 1966 SC 951, Jeeva Ratnam v. State of Madras. It was stated therein that the order of dismissal would be valid from the date when it was passed and the retrospective part can be separated from the order of dismissal. Following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the dismissal order would take effect from 30-12-67.

2. The writ application is accordingly allowed. A writ of mandamus would issue to the opposite parties, directing them to treat the petitioner as continuing in service till 30-12-67 on which date his services were terminated by the order of dismissal.

3. The application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only).

R.N. Misra, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //