Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 *** Sri Abhimanyu Panda Aged about 63 years Son of Late Dasarathi Panda At: Naneya Petta Street, P.O.: Chatrapur District: Ganjam … -VERSUS- 1. Secretary to Government Revenue and Disaster Management Department Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 2. Secretary to Government Finance Department, Odisha Bhubaneswar. 3. Collector, Ganjam At/P.O.: Chatrapur District: Ganjam. 4. Tahasildar, Ganjam At/P.O./District: Ganjam. … Counsel appeared for the parties: Petitioner Opposite Parties. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 1 of 22 For the Petitioner : M/s. Rama Krishna Bisoi, Ajit Kumar Samantaray, Pravat Kumar Dash, Advocates For the Opposite parties : Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 25.07.2025 :: Date of Order : 01.09.2025 ORDER The Office Order dated 06.01.2022 of Collector, Ganjam (Annexure-11) passed in connection with the direction to consider the representation of the petitioner by this Court vide Order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.32831 of 2021, led the petitioner to pursue this further round of litigation by way of filing afore-noted writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s): “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is ardently prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order under Annexure-11 in respect of the petitioner’s claim for fixation of his pay at Level No. 10 of pay matrix and non-sanction of 3rd MACP and also direct the opposite party No.3 for fixation of pay of petitioner at Level No. 10 of pay matrix i.e. F. 1.1.3016 and also sanction of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service accordingly all arrears may be disbursed to the petitioner with revision of Page 2 of 22 W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 pension within a time stipulation as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. And/or Issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case. And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” Facts: 2. Facts, as adumbrated by the petitioner, reveal that being appointed as Amin on 18.07.1987 by facing due process of selection, he was promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector on 22.12.2012 under the Tahasildar, Ganjam and got retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2019. 2.1. In terms of revision of pay under the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “RACPS”) promulgated under the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 (“ORSP Rules, 2008” for convenience) read with Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.2013, came into force with effect from 01.01.2013, it has been provided for extension of benefit at 1st, 2nd and 3rd stages, i.e., on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. Accordingly, the petitioner was extended benefit of 2nd RACPS of Rs.4,600/- on completion of 20 years of service on 18.07.2007. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 3 of 22 2.2. Though the promotional avenue for the posts of Assistant Revenue Inspector and Amin is the post of Revenue Inspector as per the Odisha District Revenue Service Rules, 1983, the Government sought to modify the grade pay, which led to filing of Original Applications being O.A. No.3202 of 2015 (Gangadhar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha) and batch before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar wherein the decision of the Government got quashed by order dated 20.09.2017 and the Government of Odisha implemented such order of the learned Tribunal vide Revenue and Disaster Management Department Letter No.26179— RDM-NGEA-CASEAT-0082/2016/ R&DM, dated 16.07.2018. 2.3. While the position attained so, the General Administration and Public Grievance Department Resolution No.3894, dated 09.02.2018 has come to be issued in pursuance of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017 (“ORSP Rules, 2017”, in abbreviation), effective from 01.01.2016, which has been promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 2.4. In exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, the Government in General Administration and Public Grievance Department through said Resolution of W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 4 of 22 2018 has classified inter alia that, post in Group-B with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- in Pay Band-2 (Rs.9,300/- - Rs.34,800/-) is revised to be placed under Level-10 (Cell No.1-40) in Pay Matrix, the opposite party No.4 (Tahasildar) re-fixed the Grade Pay at Rs.4,200/- under Group-B with Pay Band-2 (Rs.9,300/- - Rs.34,800/-) at Level-9 (Cell No.1-40) in Pay Matrix. Therefore, in effect, obliterating the Order of the learned Administrative Tribunal after its implementation with respect to 2nd RACPS with effect from 01.01.2013 on completion of 20 years of service, by way of such revision the opposite parties denied legitimate 3rd MACPS on completion of 30 years in terms of the ORSP Rules, 2017. 2.5. The representation in this regard having paid deaf ears, a writ application, being W.P.(C) No.32831 of 2021, was filed, which came to be disposed of on 27.10.2021 with the following direction: “2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.3 to re-fix the grade pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2013 on completion of 20 years of service with fixation of his pay in level no.10 of the 7th pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 with revision as per notification under Annexure-7 and sanction the 3rd MACP as per G.A. Deptt. order dated 30.04.2020 and accordingly all arrear may be disbursed to the petitioner with revision of pension within a time stipulated. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 5 of 22 3.
Decision
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that highlighting the grievances, the petitioner has made representation to opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-9, and the same may be directed to be disposed of within a stipulated time taking into consideration Annexure-6 and 8, to which learned State Counsel has raised no objection. 4. Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.3 the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure- 9, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law taking into consideration Annexure-6 and 8, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” to consider 2.6. In pursuance of such direction the opposite party No.3- Collector, Ganjam passed Office Order communicated vide Letter No.31/XXIX-II-76/21/BBE, dated 06.01.2022, by revising already sanctioned pay in tune with 2nd RACPS by re-fixing it at Level-9 in Pay Matrix with effect from 01.01.2016 and refused to allow 3rd MACP under the ORSP Rules, 2017, with effect from 18.07.2017, i.e., completion of 30 years of service from base level post of Amin, with the following reason: “*** the case of the petitioner was not allowed by the Screening Committee held earlier on dated 04.03.2020 citing the reason that he has not passed the requisite RITI training in the post of Revenue Inspector so as to be eligible for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 6 of 22 The MACP Scheme just like ACP/RACP Schemes as provided under ORSP Rules, 2008, also requires fulfilment of promotional criteria by any employee to be eligible for grant of financial benefits under MACP. It is a fact that the Government of Odisha in General Administration and Public Grievance Department vide their Letter No.10966/Gen, dated 30.04.2020 (as appended at Annexure-8 in the writ petition) have earlier that ‘the employees who have passed only Departmental Examination and not undergone Training may be considered for promotion provided that the lapse is not due to the fault of the employee concerned.’ But in the cadre of Revenue Inspector, he/she has to undergo the RITI training only to be eligible for promotion the post of Revenue Supervisor and no such to departmental examination is required to be passed by the Revenue Inspector concerned. Thus the above instruction is not applicable to the cadre of Revenue Inspector. Besides this, it is found that, prior to introduction of the above instruction of Government of Odisha in General Administration and Public Grievance Department, the petitioner have already been retired from Government service with effect from 31.01.2019. Further the above instruction does not have any retrospective effect and it is applicable with effect from the date of issue of instruction, i.e., with effect from 30.04.2020. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for grant of 3rd MACP with effect from 18.07.2017 cannot be considered as it is not sustainable under the eyes of law and thus the same is rejected.” W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 7 of 22 2.7. Assailing such reasons ascribed by the Collector, Ganjam in rejecting the representation as untenable, bad and unjustified, the instant writ petition has been filed. Rival contentions and submissions: 3. Sri Rama Krishna Bisoi, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner completed 10, 20 and 30 years of service on 18.07.1997, 18.07.2007 and 18.07.2017 and was allowed to retire on attaining age of superannuation on 31.01.2019. Whereas the authorities in order to comply with the Order dated 20.09.2017 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.3202 of 2015 implemented the direction contained therein by treating the post of Revenue Inspector post as promotional avenue of Amin and ARI and accordingly allowed the appropriate Grade Pay in favour of the petitioner in tune with the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department Letter No. RDM-NGEA-CASETAT-0082/2016/26179/R&DM, dated 16.07.2018, by stemming on “illustration-4” appended to the ORSP Rules, 2017, the Collector, Ganjam has overstepped his jurisdiction by assuming authority to sit over such decision of quasi judicial order. 3.1. He flagged an issue by expanding his argument further that the letter dated 30.04.2020 of General W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 8 of 22 Administration and Public Grievance being clarificatory in nature, the benefit of such benevolent view should have been extended to all the employees who are eligible as per MACPS envisaged under the ORSP Rules, 2017, inasmuch as the petitioner was in service as on the date of promulgation of such Scheme in view of the fact that he completed 30 years of service much prior to his retirement with effect from 31.01.2019. 3.2. It is vehemently contended that as the petitioner was not given opportunity to undergo training under RITI, though many others were being given chance to undergo training, for no fault of his, he should not have been deprived of the legitimate pecuniary benefit under the aforesaid Scheme. 3.3. Therefore, he fervently prayed to set aside the Office Order dated 06.01.2022 (Annexure-11). 4. Sri Prem Kumar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, reiterating the reasons assigned for rejection of representation claiming restoration of Grade Pay and entitlement of pay as per MACPS envisaged under the ORSP Rules, 2017, this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India need not go into the decision taken by the Collector, Ganjam pursuant to the direction of this Court vide Order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P. (C) No. 32831 of 2021. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 9 of 22 4.1. He submitted that since the petitioner got promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector from the post of Amin on 22.12.2012 and has not undergone training in RITI, there has been no apparent violation of effect of implementation of Order dated 20.09.2017 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.3202 of 2015. There is no flaw from the side of the authority in re-fixing the Grade Pay appropriately in consonance with the ORSP Rules, 2017. Discussions and analysis: 5. Undisputed fact remains that the petitioner completed 10, 20 and 30 years of service on 18.07.1997, 18.07.2007 and 18.07.2017 respectively and having been promoted from the post of Amin to the post of Revenue Inspector on 22.12.2012, he got retired with effect from 31.01.2019 on attaining age of superannuation. 5.1. Reading of impugned Order dated 06.01.2022 reveals the following pertinent facts: i. The petitioner is allowed to avail benefit of 2nd RACP (Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-) with effect from 01.01.2013 having completed 20 years of service, i.e., 18.07.2007. “Any recovery made to this effect be also refunded to the petitioner”. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 10 of 22 ii. The claim of fixation of pay at Level-10 of the Pay Matrix with effect from 01.01.2016 under the ORSP Rules, 2017, has been denied and the same is revised by placing the petitioner at Level-9 attached to the Revenue Inspector, which post the petitioner held as on 01.01.2016 on the sole ground that “he has not passed the requisite RITI training in post of Revenue Inspector so as to eligible for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor”. 5.2. To address this issue, it is to be discerned from the record whether such training has been foregone at the behest of the petitioner and the authorities have afforded him opportunity to undergo such training at RITI. 5.3. The petitioner during the course of hearing placed on record information supplied to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Documents supplied to him by the Public Information Officer in the Office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam at Chatrapur makes it abundantly clear that during the relevant period many other Revenue Inspectors were allowed to relieve to undergo training at RITI, Khallikote, but the present petitioner had never been given opportunity to undergo such training, notwithstanding that he was promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector on 22.12.2012. Answer to a query from the Bench to the Additional Standing Counsel was in the negative. The W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 11 of 22 record is silent about the fact that at any point of time the authority concerned had ever offered the petitioner to undergo such training. 5.4. From the pleadings it transpired that the petitioner completed 30 years of service on 18.07.2017, and the benefit of the ORSP Rules, 2017 has been made effective from 01.01.2016. Since opportunity of undergoing training at RITI being not given to the petitioner between 22.12.2012 to 18.07.2017 or thereafter, no fault could be attributable to the petitioner. 5.5. To buttress his argument, Sri Rama Krishna Bisoi, learned Advocate would submit that the information supplied by the Public Information Officer, Collectorate, Ganjam at Chatrapur as submitted to this Court by way of Memo dated 25.07.2025, which remains undisputed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel makes it abundantly clear that during the relevant period untrained Revenue Inspectors have been given chance to undergo RITI, Khallikote in phases. A letter bearing No.IX-7/17— 46/Rev., dated 11.01.2018 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack manifests that “although training programme started in the last week of August, 2017 till the first week of January, 2018, some Revenue field staff could not attend the said Orientation Training Programme due to various reasons” and thereby all the Page 12 of 22 W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Collectors were requested to “sponsor the left-out untrained R.Is., A.R.Is. and Amins to the allotted training centres without fail”. However, said letter also stipulated that “if the number of untrained Revenue field staff is found to be more than the number indicated in the training programme, the fact thereof should be intimated” so as to take steps for “their accommodation to the next batch of the Orientation Training Programme of the respective category of Revenue field staff”. Scrutiny of the letters supplied by the Public Information Officer reveals that certain field staff of Chatrapur were relieved to undergo training at RITI, Khallikote, but the present petitioner was neither sponsored nor was communicated to attend such training programme. In the counter affidavit except asserting that “the Government of Odisha in General Administration and Public Grievance Department vide their Letter No.10699/Gen., dated 30.04.20201 is inapplicable to the present petitioner”, no material is placed to suggest that 1 General Administration and Public Grievance Department Letter No.10699— PT1-GAD-SC-RULES-0001-2020/Gen., dated 30th April, 2020, addressed to All Departments of Government, All Heads of Departments, All RDCs and All Collectors reads thus: “I am directed to intimate that considering the recommendations of the Promotion Adalats, it was observed that for employees of District Cadre, both passing of Departmental Examination and Training are mandatory for consideration of promotion. But in certain cases, employees are unable to undergo the said training due to prior official engagement, Government have been pleased to order that in such cases, the employees who have passed only Departmental Examination and not undergone Training may be considered for promotion provided that the lapse is not due to the fault of the employee concerned.” W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 13 of 22 fault can be attributable to the petitioner regarding undergoing training programme. 5.6. Such a stance of the opposite parties is liable to be repelled inasmuch as the said Circular/Instructions of the Government Department though was issued in the year 2020, and by then the employee has got retired, it is applicable retrospectively as it is well established proposition in law that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, when the circular is against the employee, it is his right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively; nonetheless, when it is benevolent in favour of subject, the same operates retrospectively. As a matter of principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clarified in CCE Vrs. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., (2006) 12 SCC 4482, as follows: “13. *** Learned counsel further submitted the circular being oppressive and against the respondent has to apply only prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively. In other words, a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, when the circular is against the respondents they have a right to claim the enforcement of the same prospectively. It is further submitted that for the period in question, trade notices had 2 See also, Suchitra Components Ltd. Vrs. CCE, (2006) 12 SCC 452. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 14 of 22 been issued classifying the circuit-breakers under Heading 85.35 or 85.36 depending upon the voltage, which are binding upon the Department. Thus, he submitted that the circuit- breaker is classifiable under Heading 85.35. He would further submit that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents by following its own order in Eswaran & Sons [(1999) 112 ELT 1011 (CEGAT)] and has not given any finding on the merits of the matter. *** by list jurisdictional 15. In the instant case, the assessee had filed a classification from 01.03.1993, effective classifying the single panel circuit-breakers under Heading 85.35 and claiming concessional rate of duty at 5% under Notification No. 52/93 dated list was 28.02.1993. The said classification Assistant the approved Commissioner on 10.06.1993. Thereafter, the assessee cleared the said goods in accordance with this the approved approved classification was proposed to be revised to reclassify the single panel circuit- breakers under Heading 85.37 of the Tariff Act, such reclassification can take effect only prospectively from the date of communication of proposing reclassification. In the instant case, the show- cause notice was communicated to the assessee only on 31.12.1993. Therefore, as rightly urged by the for the reclassification can take effect only from 27.04.1994 learned counsel classification list. When show-cause respondent, notice the the W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 15 of 22 and accordingly demanded only from that date.” the differential duty can be 5.7. In WPIL Ltd. Vrs. CCE, (2005) 3 SCC 73 it has been observed as follows: “15. The learned counsel for the appellant is also right in relying upon a decision of this Court in CCE Vrs. Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454. In that case, this Court held that a clarificatory notification would take effect retrospectively. Such a notification merely clarifies the position and makes explicit what was implicit. Clarificatory notifications have been issued to end the dispute between the parties.” 5.8. In view of authoritative enunciation of legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India it is apt to state that benevolent circulars in favour of employees shall operate retrospectively and, therefore, this Court is of the view that the argument based on the reason assigned by the Collector, Ganjam in his Order dated 06.01.2022 to the effect that “prior to introduction of the above instruction of Government of Odisha in General Administration and Public Grievance Department, the petitioner have already retired from Government service with effect from 31.01.2019” and “the above instruction does not have any retrospective effect and it is applicable with effect from the date of issue of instruction, i.e., with effect from 30.04.2020” cannot be sanctified. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 16 of 22 5.9. Having observed thus, the other ground to deny benefit of third Modified Assured Career Progression as envisaged under the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for having not undergone training at RITI. 5.10. Consequent of revision of the pay scales of the Central Government employees, the State Government constituted a Fitment Committee of Finance Department Resolution No.FIN-PCC-PAY-0005-2016— 29086/F., dated 28.10.2016 to recommend revision in the pay scales of the State Government employees, to suggest modalities and procedure of fitment of the existing grades in the revised scale of pay, to examine anomalies in the existing pay scales and to review the scale of other allowances and relatable pay. Rule 2(2) of the ORSP Rules, 2017 read with Paragraph-2 of Government of Odisha in Finance Department Resolution No.26342— FIN-PCC-PAY-0003-2017/F., dated 07.09.2017 excluded following categories of persons (employees) from application of the revised pay structure under the ORSP Rules, 2017, viz., “(a) persons engaged by Government on contract basis except when the contract provides otherwise, (b) persons re-employed in Government service after retirement, W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 17 of 22 (c) persons paid out of contingency, (d) persons paid otherwise thần on a monthly basis including those paid only on piece rate basis, (e) persons not drawing pay in regular scale of pay for whom no revised scales of pay are prescribed, (f) employees borne under Work-charged establishment as defined in resolution of Government in the erstwhile No.9488 Dtd.18.06.1974, Department P & 5 (g) Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary Service in the State of Odisha who are availing the revised scale of pay as per Finance Department Resolution No.23598-F., dated the 30 June, 2003 and Law Department Resolution No.8318-VI-12/2010-L., dated the 2nd August, 2010 on the basis of the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission and Justice Padmanavan Commission, respectively, (h) employees governed by the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (for College Teachers) Rules, 1978, 1989, 2001 & 2010/ the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (for Medical college Teachers) Rules, 1982, 1989, 2001 & 2010/ the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (for Engineering College Teachers) Rules, 2001 & 2010/ the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) Rules, 1963/the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994, (i) persons not Government of Odisha, in whole time employment under W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 18 of 22 (j) persons engaged as per G.A. Department Resolution No.32010/Gen., dated 12.11.2013 and Resolution No.1147/Gen., dated 17.01.2014 till regularisation, (k) any other cases or category of persons whom the Governor may by order, specifically exclude from the operation of all or any of the provisions of these revised pay rules.” Rule 4 of the ORSP Rules, 2017 spells out that, “the Level of posts shall be determined in accordance with the various Levels as assigned to the corresponding existing Pay Band and Grade Pay as specified in the Pay Matrix”. Rule 11 deals with “revision of pay from a date subsequent to 1st day of January, 2016— Where a Government servant who continues to draw his pay in the existing pay structure is brought over to revised pay structure from a date later than the 1st day of January, 2016, his pay in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in the manner prescribed in Rule 7(1) above”; whereas Rule 12 specifies “fixation of pay on promotion on or after 1st day of January, 2016”. Paragraph 8 of the above Finance Department Resolution dated 07.09.2017 further specifies fixation of pay on promotion on or after 01.01.2016, whereas in the instant case the petitioner got promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector in the year 2012, i.e., much prior to said date. Furthermore, he was never sponsored to undergo training at RITI, whereas other colleagues were given such opportunity. W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 19 of 22 5.11. This apart, Rule 13 of the ORSP Rules, 2017, dealing with “Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS)” lays down that “Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme shall come into effect from the 1st day of January, 2016 with the implementation of these Rules to address the stagnation of Government employee” and a Scheme has been formulated thereunder. 5.12. It transpires from the impugned order of the Collector that he relied on Illustration-4 appended to Annexure-1 to the ORSP Rules, 2017, to reduce the pay scale, which is apparently incongruous, inasmuch as there is no indication therein to downgrade the existing pay scale at which the employees like the petitioner has been availing benefit of RACPS under erstwhile ORSP Rules. The learned Additional Standing Counsel also was not in a position to explain/justify the computation as found place in the Order dated 06.01.2022, with specific reference to implementation of Order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the case of Gangadhar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha, O.A. No.3202 of 2015 [vide Letter dated 16.07.2018, Annexure-6]. 5.13. Cumulative reading of the above discussion boils down to the fact that nothing on record is placed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel to suggest that in W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 20 of 22 order to claim eligibility to avail benefit of 3rd MACPS the petitioner has to have undergone training at RITI. Because of the facts as outlined hereinabove leading to establish that it is the employer who was responsible for granting opportunity to undergo training at RITI by relieving the employee, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced to avail benefit of the MACPS envisaged under the ORSP Rules, 2017. 5.14. Under the above premises, the order of the Collector, Ganjam denying 3rd MACPS with effect from 18.07.2017 on completion of 30 years of service from the base level post of Amin under the ORSP Rules, 2017, on the specious plea that the petitioner “has not passed the requisite RITI training in the post of Revenue Inspector so as to be eligible for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor” cannot be countenanced. Conclusion: 6. Conspectus of factual matrix as discussed above and the reasons ascribed thereto with reference to relevant provisions of the ORSP Rules juxtaposed with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Office Order No.31— XXIX-ii-76/21/BBE, dated 06.01.2022 of the Collector, Ganjam, passed pursuant to direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32831 of 2021, vide Order dated W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 21 of 22 27.10.2021on the grounds that the petitioner has not undergone training at RITI in the post of Revenue Inspector so that he could be eligible for promotion to the post of the Revenue Supervisor; and the instruction of Government of Odisha in General Administration and Public Grievance Department dated 30.04.2020 would operate prospectively cannot be held to be sustainable; hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the Office Order No.31— XXIX-ii-76/21/BBE, dated 06.01.2022 of the Collector, Ganjam, vide Annexure-11. 7.1. In the wake of aforesaid, all the consequential reliefs and/or benefits are to be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months from date. 7.2. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 7.3. There shall be no order as to costs. (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 14:27:51 High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 1st September, 2025//Aswini/Laxmikant W.P.(C) No.6807 of 2022 Page 22 of 22