The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12326 of 2025 1) Udayabhanu Mishra 2) Narayan Nayak 3) Dhirendra Ku Lenka 4) Santosh Ku Barik 5) Judhistira Barik 6) Ajay Ku Mohanty 7) Santilata Moharana -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director-cum- Addl Secy To Govt, Housing And Urban Development Dept 3) Prinicipal Secy To Govt, Finance 4) Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack 5) Dist Local Fund Audit Officer, Cuttack ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Laxmikanta Tripathy ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samaresh Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayer : “ The Petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue rule Page 1 of 5. nisi calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Opp Parties should not be directed to extend the benefit of 7th Pay Scale Revision and 2nd and 3rd RACP/MACP financial upgradation to the Petitioners by taking into account the date of initial engagement as NMR/DLR/Ad-hoc employees prior to regularization, as qualifying service for the purpose of RACP/MACP upgradation as per the terms and conditions of the said regularization Order No. LFS (SB) 4/95 (pt)-16998/HUD dated 17/5/1999 at Annexure-2 and as has been extended in the case of similarly situated employees working in other ULB's as mentioned above, who were also regularized vide the said order dated 17.05.1999 at Annexure-2 along with all consequential financial, pensionary and retiral benefits. And if the Opp. Party failed to show cause or sufficient cause, the rule be made absolute. And further be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ or order/orders, as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice; 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset contended that the present petitioners were working as DLR/NMR/Ad-hoc employees under the Cuttack Municipal, Corporation. On being appointed in the year 1987. While working as such their services were regularised w.e.f. 17.05.1999 pursuant to the order under Annexure-2 passed by the Government communicated through the Director Municipal Administration. Pursuant to the aforesaid order on the service of the petitioners were regularised and the past service of the Petitioners as NMR/DLR/Ad hoc employees were taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing their seniority. The dispute that is involved in the present writ application is with regard to the payment of the RACP benefits to the Petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage contended that while considering the cases of the petitioners for grant of RACP benefits the Opposite Party-Corporation has not taken into consideration their past service. Page 2 of 5. He further submitted that a clarification was sought for from the government by the CMC vide letter dated 09.12.2019 under Anexure-8 to the writ application. Further, awaiting such clarification, no final decision has been taken by the CMC with regard to grant of RACP benefits to the petitioners. He further submitted that the Opposite Party-Municipal Corporation has already extended similar benefits to similarly situated many other employees ignoring the case of the present petitioners for grant of such RACP benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referring to the letter dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure-14, which was passed by the government while considering the representation of the petitioners dated 26.11.2024 under Annexure-13 to the writ application, submitted that the government has asked the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to look into the matter and take necessary action on such representation of the petitioners. He further submitted that in the process the grievance of the petitioners still remains unaddressed. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the part of the opposite parties the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however on perusal of the pleadings in the writ application it appears that the Government has already taken a decision in the matter and the matter has been remanded back to the Commissioner Cuttack, Municipal Corporation to look into the grievance of the petitioners and take a decision in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the government has no role so far the Page 3 of 5. grievance of the petitioners are concerned. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State shall remain that the present writ application has not maintainable. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as documents annexed to the writ application, further keeping in view the nature of the grievance involved in the writ application, this Court is of the view that although a clarification was sought for from the government vide letter 09.12.2019 under Annexure-8 by the Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, however no such clarification has been provided as of now. Although this Court is of the view that once the benefit of seniority has been granted for the past service by directing to calculate the past period of service towards seniority, the same shall include the direction to consider the case of the petitioners for calculation of all service benefits by taking into consideration the past service, although such decision restricts the payment of the financial benefits for the aforesaid period as has been indicated in the letter under Annexure-2 to the writ application i.e. containing the order regularisation of the petitioners. In any event this Court is of the view that since the order of regularisation was passed by the government itself, necessary clarification should have been provided by the Government pursuant to the letter dated 09.12.2019 under Annexure-8 to the Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation for taking appropriate action in the matter of the present petitioners. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that it is the Government which is required to take a decision on the letter dated 09.12.2019 by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation. Page 4 of 5. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 09.12.2019 under Annexure-8 and provide necessary clarification to the Opposite Parties No.4-Corporation within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. While considering the letter under Annexure-8 to the writ application, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take into consideration the fact that similarly situated employees have already been extended the benefits of RACP. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the Opposite Party No.4 as well as the petitioners within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 14:53:24