The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9913 of 2022 Saroj Kumar Maharana & Others …. Petitioners Mr. K.C. Satapathy, Advocate Commissioner-cum-Secy., S & ME Dept. & Others …. -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 25.02.2025 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners inter alia challenging the order dtd.15.03.2022 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-13. 4. It is contended that since the deceased employee was not given the benefit of higher scale of pay w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in spite of several approaches, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20055 of 2020 for extension of such higher scale of pay. This Court vide order dtd.24.11.2020 while disposing the writ petition, directed the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim so // 2 // made in his representation enclosed vide Annexure-8 to the said Writ Petition. 4.1. It is contended that the claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of higher scale of pay was directed to be considered in the light of the order passed in O.A. No.4176 (C) of 1997 decided on 26.02.2010 under Annexure-5. But claim of the deceased employee on the ground of delay was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.15.03.2022 under Annexure-13. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.20055 of 2020, claim of the deceased employee could not have been rejected on the ground of delay and the same accordingly is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.2. Learned State Counsel on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that since the deceased employee retired from Govt. service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2000 and he filed the representation to get the benefit of higher scale of pay w.e.f. 01.05.1989 and consequential revision of pension on 26.04.2014 i.e. after lapse of 14 years of the retirement, on the face of the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.20055 of 2020, claim of the deceased employee was rejected vide the impugned order on the ground of delay. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that since the claim for grant of higher scale of pay was made by the deceased employee after more than 14 years of his retirement, the same is not entertainable because of such delayed approach. It is also contended that Petitioner since raised such a claim taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5, he being a fence sitter, is not entitled to get the benefit. It is accordingly contended that claim of the deceased employee has been rightly rejected and Petitioners being the legal heirs, are not permitted to challenge the same. 5. To the submission made by the learned State Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since grant of scale of pay is a recurring cause of action, and the deceased employee was deprived to get the same on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of similarly situated person vide order dtd.26.02.2010 under Annexure-5, the deceased employee on coming across the said order, approached the authority time and again and the last such representation was filed in the year 2014 under Annexure-8. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5 and the representation made by the deceased employee on 26.06.2014 under Annexure-8, claim of the Petitioners on Page 3 of 6 // 4 // the face of the order passed by this Court could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. It is also contended that since the deceased employee while prosecuting his claim died, Petitioners being the legal heirs are entitled to get such financial benefit as due to the deceased employee. It is accordingly contended that Petitioners are eligible to prosecute the claim. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claiming higher scale of pay w.e.f 01.05.1989, the deceased employee taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal on 26.02.2010 in O.A. No.4176(C)/1997 moved a representation before Opposite Party No.1 on 26.06.2014 under Annexure-8. As the said claim was not considered, the deceased employee approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20055 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.24.11.2020 directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the claim so made in representation dtd. 26.06.2014. But as found from the impugned order, such claim of the deceased employee was rejected on the ground of delay. 6.1. This Court after going through the materials available on record finds that the deceased – employee raised his claim to get the benefit of higher scale of pay w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A No.4176(C) of 1997 on 26.02.2010. On Page 4 of 6 // 5 // the face of such order passed by the Tribunal and the representation made by the Petitioners on 26.06.2014 under Annexure-8, when the benefit was not extended, the deceased employee approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20055 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.24.11.2020 directed Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim of the deceased employee taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal. On the face of such order passed by this Court coupled with the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5, this Court is of the view that claim of the deceased employee could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. 6.2. It is also the view of the Court that since the deceased employee on such sanction of the higher scale of pay will become eligible to get some differential amount, Petitioners being the legal heirs are eligible to prosecute the claim. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.15.03.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim of the deceased employee on merit and take a fresh decision taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5 within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioners. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Mar-2025 18:14:28 Page 6 of 6