The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6545 of 2024 Kishor Chandra Sahu …. State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Ojha, Adv. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.08.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances indicated above, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to file their show cause furnishing the reason as to why; i. Writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued quashing letter/order dated 12.04.2022 (Annex.3) and further dated 01.02.2024 (Annex.4) holding the same is/are contrary to the ORSP Rules, 2017 so also against the benevolent Scheme of MACP; quashing/modifying clarification ii. Writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Opp.Parties to extend the benefit of the MACPs to the petitioner as per Sub Rule-(v) of Rule-13 read with Rule-12 (1) of the ORSP Rules, 2017 by way of adding one increment in their pay in Level-5 and further addicting GP of Rs.4200/- for completion of 10 years of service and placing him in Level-6 in appropriate Cell; iii. To direct the Opp.Parties to extend the benefit of MACP as per rules from the date of entitlement & arrears thereof; // 2 // If the Opp. Parties failed to file any show cause or show insufficient cause, the rules may be made absolute. And pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO), in terms of the notification issued by the Finance Department on 20.09.2017 under Annexure-1 framing ORSP Rules, 2017, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of pay fixation as per the 1st Schedule enclosed to the said rules. As per the said Schedule, Petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of the pay fixation under Level-VI, Cell-15. But contrary to the provisions contained under the said rules, which has got statutory force, Government in the Panchayatiraj Department-Opposite Party No.2 issued the impugned clarification on 12.04.2022 under Annexure-3, whereby Petitioner was deprived to get benefit of pay fixation under Level-VI, Cell-15 with the grade pay as due and admissible. 4.1. It is contended that once a rule is framed taking recourse to the provisions contained under Article -309 of the Constitution of India, the same could not have been clarified in the manner it has been done by the Panchayatiraj Department-Opposite Party No.2, while issuing the impugned letter dtd.12.04.2022 under Annexure-3. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.2. It is contended that in terms of ORSP Rules, 2017 which has got statutory force, Petitioner’s pay should have been fixed under Level-VI, Cell-15. But in view of the impugned clarification issued by the Panchayatiraj Department on 12.04.2022, his pay has been fixed differently, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. It is however contended that on the face of such, clarification issued under Annexure-3, some of the employees similarly situated and continuing as PEOs, have got the benefit in terms of the schedule appended to ORSP Rules, 2017 vide order issued on 04.01.2024 under Annexure-6-Series. One Akhaya Kumar Samal, PEO, Rasulpur Block, Jajpur being placed at Sl. No.44 of order dtd.04.01.2024, has got his pay fixed as per the 1st Schedule appended to ORSP Rules, 2017. 4.4. It is contented that while benefit in favour of the aforesaid Akhaya Kumar Samal has been extended in terms of the provisions contained under ORSP Rules, 2017, but Petitioner’s pay has been fixed basing on the impugned clarification issued by the Department on 12.04.2022 under Annexure-3, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5. It is accordingly contended that necessary direction be issued to Opposite Party No.2 to recall the clarification issued on 12.04.2022 and allow the pay of the Petitioner Page 3 of 6 // 4 // to be fixed as provided in the 1st Schedule appended to ORSP Rules, 2017. 4.6. It is also contended that the impugned clarification issued by the Department of Panchayatiraj on 12.04.2022 under Annexure-3 is contrary to the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Union of India & Ors. vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr., reported in (2018) 1 SCC (L&S)-866. It is accordingly contended that the impugned clarification is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned clarification contended that since the Department of Panchayatiraj subsequent to publication of ORSP Rules, 2017 under Annexure-1, found that Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of the pay as per the 1st Schedule, the clarification under Annexure-3 was issued on 12.04.2022. 5.1. It is however contended that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by such clarification which as per him is contrary to the provisions contained under the rules, the same should have been brought to the notice of the concerned authority, rather than approaching this Court. Instead of approaching Opposite Party No.2 to reconsider the clarification, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the clarification, which is not sustainable. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Government in the Finance Department while issuing the notification dtd.20.09.2017 under Annexure-1, framed ORSP Rules, 2017, making it applicable w.e.f 1.1.2016. As per said notification and as contended Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of pay fixation under Level-VI, Cell-15 in the shape of 1st MACP. But because of the impugned clarification issued on 12.04.2022 under Annexure-3, pay of the Petitioner has not been extended in terms of the 1st Schedule appended to ORSP Rules, 2017. 6.1. It is also found from order dtd.04.01.2024 under Annexure-6-Series that some of the PEOs have got the benefit of pay fixation with fixation of pay under Level-VI, Cell-15 as provided in the 1st Schedule appended to ORSP Rules, 2017. But Petitioner has not been extended with the benefit in view of the impugned clarification issued on 12.04.2022 under Annexure-3. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make a comprehensive of representation ventilating his grievance with regard to fixation of his pay in terms of the 1st Schedule appended to ORSP Rules, 2017 and the prejudice caused due to the clarification issued on 12.04.2022 under Annexure-3. It is observed that if any Page 5 of 6 // 6 // such representation will be moved within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to allow Petitioner Narayan Sahu in W.P.(C) No.19074 of 2022 to represent the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions before him. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to take a decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. Pay fixation of the Petitioner if any made under ORSP Rules, 2017, will be subject to final outcome of the decision to be taken by Opposite Party No.2 as directed. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 16:27:55 Page 6 of 6