Computer Lab Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Computer Lab vs State of Orissa and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Orissa Decided Mar 29, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/532554

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/532554
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: Sujit Barman Roy, C.J. and ;A.S. Naidu, J.
Decided On: Mar 29, 2004
Case Number: RVWPET No. 3 of 2004
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.198...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Computer Lab

Advocate S.K. Das and S. Swain

Respondent

State of Orissa and ors.

Advocate Ashok Mohanty, Senior Standing Counsel and ;V. Narasing, Addl. Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax Department For Opp. Parties 1 to 3 and ;S.N. Mohapatra, Adv. For Opp. Party No. 4

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151
Reported In: I(2005)BC513; 2004(I)OLR699

Excerpt

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....not implead the review petitioner as an opposite party in the writ petition. learned counsel for the writ petitioner at the other hand submitted that as no right had accrued to the review petitioner, it was not a necessary party to the writ petition. as a mater of fact, the writ petitioner challenged the order of rejection of its technical bid by the commercial tax department. on the date of filing of the writ petition, no right indeed had accrued to the review petitioner. the opposite party department also did not aver in its counter-affidavit that the review petitioner had been found eligible as it had quoted the lowest price. in course of hearing of the writ petition also this fact was not brought to the notice of the court. but then, fact remains, during pendency of the writ petition, the opposite party department proceeded to finalise the tender and gave opportunity to other firms to submit their price bids and also opened the same. all these actions having been taken during the pendency of the writ petition, the same will be hit by the principles of lis pendens. 3. be that as it may, in view of the fact that the department has now decided to scrap the entire tender process and entrust the work in question to a government organisation, i.e. orissa computer application centre. bhubaneswar, and a petition for modification of the judgment of this court dated 19.12.2003 in w.p. (c) no. 12510 of 2003 has been allowed, there is no need to entertain this review petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. sujit barman roy, c.j.i agree.

Full Judgment

A.S. Naidu, J.

1. M/s. Computer Lab, one of the firms which had submitted its bid to the Commercial Tax Department of the. Government of Orissa pursuant to its Tender Call Notice issued on 20.8.2003, has filed this Review Petition inter alia seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 12510 of 2003 on the ground that the said firm will be highly prejudiced if the direction issued to Government would be implemented.

2. It appears that the Review petitioner was not a party to the writ petition. It is alleged that the writ petitioner intentionally did not implead the review petitioner as an opposite party in the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner at the other hand submitted that as no right had accrued to the review petitioner, it was not a necessary party to the writ petition. As a mater of fact, the writ petitioner challenged the order of rejection of its technical bid by the Commercial Tax Department. On the date of filing of the writ petition, no right indeed had accrued to the review petitioner. The opposite party Department also did not aver in its counter-affidavit that the review petitioner had been found eligible as it had quoted the lowest price. In course of hearing of the writ petition also this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. But then, fact remains, during pendency of the writ petition, the opposite party Department proceeded to finalise the tender and gave opportunity to other firms to submit their price bids and also opened the same. All these actions having been taken during the pendency of the writ petition, the same will be hit by the principles of lis pendens.

3. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the Department has now decided to scrap the entire tender process and entrust the work in question to a Government organisation, i.e. Orissa Computer Application Centre. Bhubaneswar, and a petition for modification of the judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 12510 of 2003 has been allowed, there is no need to entertain this Review Petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.

I agree.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2004 Same Parties Computer Lab vs State of Orissa and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Sujit Barman Roy, C.J. and ;A.S. Naidu, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151

Civil