Rabindra Nayak Alias Rabindra Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

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. - (1993) 6 ori cri r 604, the plea is clearly untenable.ordera. pasayat, j.1. heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for state.2. petitioner's grievance is that the learned judicial magistrate, first class, baramba was not justified in remanding the petitioner to custody beyond the period of fifteen days, that too in the absence of petitioner. so far as the first plea is concerned, in view of what has been stated by a full bench of this court in banka v. state, (1992) 5 orissa cri r 555 : (1993 cri lj 442), and by a division bench of this court in state v. fagu mallick etc. etc. (1993) 6 ori cri r 604, the plea is clearly untenable.3. reliance was placed on a decision of this court in ramnath naik v. state of orissa, (1993) 6 ori cri r 237 to contend that in the absence of the accused an order of remand cannot be passed. in view of a division bench decision of this court to which i was a party in suresh chandra dash alias suresh narayan dash v. state of orissa, (1994) 7 ori cri r 562, the plea is without substance. the controversy was set at rest by a decision of the apex court in raj narain v. superintendent, : 1971crilj244 , which was not referred to in ramnath naik's case (supra).both the contentions raised being without merit, the application is rejected.

Judgment:
ORDER

A. Pasayat, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for State.

2. Petitioner's grievance is that the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Baramba was not justified in remanding the petitioner to custody beyond the period of fifteen days, that too in the absence of petitioner. So far as the first plea is concerned, in view of what has been stated by a Full Bench of this Court in Banka v. State, (1992) 5 Orissa Cri R 555 : (1993 Cri LJ 442), and by a Division Bench of this Court in State v. Fagu Mallick etc. etc. (1993) 6 Ori Cri R 604, the plea is clearly untenable.

3. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ramnath Naik v. State of Orissa, (1993) 6 Ori Cri R 237 to contend that in the absence of the accused an order of remand cannot be passed. In view of a Division Bench decision of this Court to which I was a party in Suresh Chandra Dash alias Suresh Narayan Dash v. State of Orissa, (1994) 7 Ori Cri R 562, the plea is without substance. The controversy was set at rest by a decision of the apex Court in Raj Narain v. Superintendent, : 1971CriLJ244 , which was not referred to in Ramnath Naik's case (supra).

Both the contentions raised being without merit, the application is rejected.