The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4315 of 2025 Nandikishor Palia ..... State Of Odisha & Others ..... -versus- Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Surya Kanta Parhi,ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.03.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed that to. The present writ application filed with the following prayer. view of the aforesaid “In facts and circumstances as narrated above it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue Rule Nisi or any other appropriate Writs against the Opp. parties calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the decision at Annexure-6 shall Page 1 of 5. not be set aside and they may be directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP with consequential revision of pension and pensionary benefits; And, if the 0pp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute by setting aside the decision at Annexure-6 and directing the Opp. parties to grant the petitioner the benefit of 3 financial upgradation under MACP with consequential revision of pension and pensionary benefits. And/or issue any other appropriate Writ/Writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Village Level Worker (VLW) on 08.08.1996 and he was subsequently re- designated as Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO). On 06.02.2013 the Government of Odisha introduced the Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) Scheme vide Finance Department Resolution No.3561/F dated 06.02.2013. While the matter stood thus the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Collector, Boudh in office order no.447 dated 27.02.2018 granted the 2nd financial upgradation in favour of the Petitioner by allowing a grade pay of Rs.4600/- with effect from 01.01.2013. The aforesaid context leaned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the documents under Annexure-1 series. While working as such the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.05.2022. Thereafter the pension papers were submitted before the Opposite Parties on 01.02.2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in this context contended that without considering Page 2 of 5. and granting the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP, Opposite Parties have processed the pensionary claims of the Petitioner. The Petitioner being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, earlier approached the Opposite Party No-2 i.e. Collector, Boudh by filing representation on 08.09.2023. Thereafter no communication was made to the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2. When the Petitioner submitted an application under RTI Act, he has been handed over a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the proceedings of the Screening Committee on 23.11.2023. From the minutes of the meetings of the aforesaid proceedings, it appears that case of the Petitioner are not considered by the Opposite Party as the CCRs of the Petitioner for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were not available before the committee for consideration of the Petitioner’s case under the MACP Scheme. Being aggrieved by such order of rejection the Petitioner has approached this Court by filling this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee on basis of the representation under Annexure-5. He further submitted that Screening Committee on scrutiny of the Petitioner’s applications found CCRs in respect of certain period was not available. Accordingly, decision was taken by the committee not to consider the case of the Petitioner for sanction of MACP benefits. Accordingly, the representation of the Petitioner was rejected. On such grounds learned counsel for the State submitted that since the Page 3 of 5. case of the Petitioner has been duly considered and rejected the present writ application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the Parties submission made and on further perusal of the documents annexed to the writ application and keeping in view the decision of the Screening Committee under Annexure-6 to the writ application taken in its meetings dated 23.11.2023, this Court is of the view case of the Petitioner was not at all considered by the Screening Committee for grant of MACP benefits. The reason as it appears from the proceedings of the Screening Committee is that CCRs in respect of the two financial year was not available. In the aforesaid context, this Court is of the considered view that CCRs are supposed to be maintained by the competent authority and the same to be placed before the Screening Committee while considering the case of the Petitioner for MACP benefits. It is not open to the Opposite Parties to reject the representation of the Petitioner on a ground which was well within their control. This Court further observes that the Opposite Parties should place CCR of the aforesaid years before the Screening Committee for consideration of the Petitioner’s claims with regard to MACP benefits. In the aforesaid facts and this Court is of the view the impugned rejection order under Annexure-6 vide the Screening Committee meeting proceeding dated 23.11.2023 is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2, i.e. Collector, Boudh to considering the case of the Petitioner Page 4 of 5. grant of MSCP benefits. If required to the Opposite Party No.2 shall also refer to the CCRs as referred in the proceedings of the Screening Committee and accordingly shall pass order for grant of MACP benefits in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months if there are no other legal impediments. Any final decision taken by the Opposite Party No.2 shall be communicated within two weeks of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ application stands disposed of. Madhusmita ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Mar-2025 12:26:23 Page 5 of 5.