The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10353 of 2025 Rukmini Bhue ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Surendra Kumar Gartia -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – J.K. Bal, A.G.A.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 21.04.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid circumstances morefully narrated herein above the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" calling upon the Opp. Parties to show-cause as to why the order dated 18.08.2023 under ANNEXURE-12 to the extent in allowing 3rd MACP instead of 3rd RACP to the husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2016 in Page 1 of 5. modifying earlier order dated 24.06.2022 under ANNEXURE-10 and its consequential order of re- fixation Dt.12.08.2024 under ANNEXURE-13 shall not be declared illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law; If the Opp. Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute; And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to sanction and disburse grade pay Rs.5400/- on 3rd RACP w.e.f. 17.02.2016 on completion of 30 years of service of her deceased husband in view of the Panchayati Raj Deptt. Notification dt. 19.06.2014 under ANNEXURE-6 and the settle principle of law in Bihari Lal Barik case and further direct the State/O.Ps. for payment of all consequential financial benefits on that account to the petitioner. And pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as would deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially the deceased husband of the Petitioner was sanctioned with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd financial upgradation of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, Rs.4600/- and Rs.5400/- respectively. So far RACP 1st and 2nd are concerned, the same was allowed w.e.f. 1.1.2013 and, so far 3rd RACP is concerned, the same was allowed w.e.f. 1.3.2016 vide order dated 24.6.2022 under Annexure-10. Thereafter, the aforesaid order granting 3rd RACP was modified and the husband of the Petitioner has been granted 3rd MACP w.e.f. 1.3.2016 pursuant to order dated 18.8.2023 under Annexure- 12 w.e.f. 1.3.2016. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that there is a delay in granting the benefit of RACP under the 6th Pay Revision, so far the present Petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the Petitioner’s husband could not have exercised his option to come over the 7th Pay before the same was Page 2 of 5. actually allowed in his favour. He further contended that although under Annexure-10 vide order dated 24.6.2022 passed by the Collector, Subarnapur, the Petitioner’s husband was allowed 3rd RACP w.e.f. 1.3.2016, however, with regard to the applicability of 3rd RACP to the husband of the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.2016 as he has not exercised his option within three months as per the rule to come over the 7th Pay Revision. Finally, the authorities have not accepted the option exercised by the husband of the Petitioner though the same was exercised belatedly on 09.12.2021 (Annexure-9), they have granted 3rd MACP benefit to the husband of the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.2016 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that since the husband of the Petitioner did not exercise his option to come over to the 7th Pay Revision, his case has not been considered for grant of 3rd RACP benefit. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate did not dispute the grant of 1st and 2nd RACP benefits to the Petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.1.2013 as has been granted under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. He further contended that had the Petitioner’s husband exercised his option within the time stipulated in the rule, his case would have been considered for grant of 3rd RACP benefits. However, on failure on the part of the deceased govt. servant to exercise such option within the stipulated time, the authorities had no other option but to consider the case of the husband of the Petitioner for grant of 3rd MACP. On such ground, Page 3 of 5. learned Additional Govt. Advocate submitted that the authorities have not committed any illegality at all in passing the order under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and considering the background facts of the present case as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that in fact there was a delay in granting RACP under the 6th Pay Revision to the husband of the Petitioner. On perusal of the Annexures-10 & 11, it appears that benefits of RACP under the 6th Pay Revision of the husband of the Petitioner has been fixed on 19.09.2022 pursuant to order dated 24.6.2022 which was received by the Petitioner subsequently. Therefore, the Petitioner’s husband could not have exercised his option to come over to the 7th Pay Revision in time as per ORSP Rules, 2017. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with a certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. In the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and accept the option exercised by the husband of the Petitioner to come over to 3rd RACP under Annexure-9 and in such event, the benefit as is due and admissible to the Petitioner’s husband under the RACP Scheme be extended in favour of the Petitioner being the widow or the deceased govt. servant within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ Page 4 of 5. application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Apr-2025 18:48:18