The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12939 of 2025 Satya Ranjan Mohanty ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Niranjan Lenka -versus- State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 09.05.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel 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: to admit “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased the writ application, issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show-cause as to why the order dtd. 21.10.2024 passed by the Opp.Party No.2 vide Annexure-8 shall not be quashed and why the scale of pay of the petitioner shall not be revised as per the Page 1 of 5. RACP Scheme and why he shall not be given the benefits including the financial benefits w.e.f the date his junior got said benefits. In the event of the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute. further be pleased to pass any And order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner has joined in service on 17.03.1986. While working as such, the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Section Officer on 03.08.2017. While working as Section Officer, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2019. At this junction learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that initially the Opposite Parties sought for an option from the Petitioner with regard to sanction RACP benefits in the year 2018. However, the Petitioner could not exercise his option. Thereafter, another option was sought for on 02.11.2020. However, since the Petitioner had retired from service by then, such request for giving option was never communicated to the Petitioner which is why the Petitioner was not in a position to exercise his option. As such, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was illegally deprived of an opportunity to exercise his option to get RACP benefits instead of MACP that has been granted in his favour. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in not communicating the letter seeking option from the Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties by filing representations on 17.11.2021, 29.11.2021 & 22.01.2022. Page 2 of 5. However, no decision was taken on such representation of the Petitioner. Such inaction of the Opposite Parties compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.381 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 16.01.2024 disposed of the above noted writ petition thereby directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after disposal of the earlier writ petition the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of order dated 16.01.2024. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected his prayer vide office order dated 21.10.2024 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the impugned rejected order under Annexure-8 submitted that the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner had not exercised his option to switch over to RACP Scheme within the scheduled time as provided in the letter of the Government. Thus, it was argued that the Petitioner was not provided any remedy to exercise his option while he was in service. As such, it was contended that the impugned conduct of the Opposite Parties, as has been communicated to the Petitioner by the order under Annexure-8, is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to the quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, on a careful examination of the order dated 21.10.2024 under Annexure-8, it appears that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in the matter. He further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by Page 3 of 5. this Court in the earlier writ petition, the case of the Petitioner was considered by the Opposite Party No.2. Since it was found that the Petitioner had not exercised his option to be promoted to the RACP Scheme, his prayer for switching over to RACP scheme at a belated stage has been rejected. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, further keeping in view the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 under Annexure-8, this Court observes that the only grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is non- sanctioning of the 3rd RACP benefit in favour of the Petitioner. In the said context, this Court, while examining the impugned rejection order, found that the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner has not exercised his option to come over to the 3rd RACP Scheme. The pleadings in the present writ petition further reveals that by the time the 2nd option was called for the Petitioner had retired from service, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the Petitioner to exercise his option. Moreover, it also appears that such letter inviting option was not communicated to the Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to exercise his option by the authorities. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 under Annexure-8 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to exercise his option within four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall Page 4 of 5. do well to consider the same in accordance with law and keeping in view the decision taken in respect of the similarly situated employees and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In the event there are no other legal impediments, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to permit the Petitioner to switch over to the RACP Scheme and subsequently the financial as well as the pensionary benefits be recalculated on such basis within eight weeks from the date of taking such decision. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-May-2025 10:00:29 Page 5 of 5.