The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12617 of 2024 Dukhishyam Pattanaik ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.K. Mohapatra -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 20.05.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer : “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue Rule Nisi or any other appropriate Writs against the Opp. parties calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to revise Page 1 of 5. the pay of the petitioner at Level-12 as per the Pay Matrix of ORSP Rules, 2017 and fix his pension & pensionary benefits accordingly with all consequential financial benefits; And, if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute by directing the Opp. Parties to revise the pay of the petitioner at Level-12 as per the Pay Matrix of ORSP Rules, 2017 and fix his pension & pensionary benefits accordingly with all consequential financial benefit. And/or issue any other appropriate Writ/Writs, fit and order/orders, direction/directions as deem proper in the fitness of the case.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially the Petitioner entered into the Government service on being appointed as Village Level Worker (VLW) on 05.02.1982. Subsequently, the service of the Petitioner was re-designated as Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO). While the Petitioner was continuing in service, the Govt. of Odisha and Finance Dept. issued a Resolution on 06.02.2013 on Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACPS) granting benefits to the employees, whose promotional avenues have come to stagnate. Further, in the year 2017, the Govt. of Odisha introduced ORSP Rules, 2017 pursuant to Finance Dept. notification dated 20.09.2017. While this was so, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2019. Finally, the Opposite Party No.6 issued Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of the Petitioner on 28.01.2021. On verification of P.P.O., the Petitioner found that Opposite Parties are not Page 2 of 5. extended the 3rd RACP benefits in favour of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.38667 of 2020, whereunder the authorities were directed to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to letter dated 02.09.2021 had directed the O.P. No.4 to extend such benefits to the petitioner. 5. While the matter stood thus, on 31.03.2022, the Opposite Party No.4 passed an order allowing the grant of RACP benefits and accordingly the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- towards 3rd RACP was enhanced to Rs.5400/-. Accordingly, the Opposite party No.5 revised the pay of the Petitioner under the ORSP Rules, 2017 at Rs.5400/- as on 01.01.2016 vide his order dated 15.12.2022. Being aggrieved by the grant of Grade Pay at a lesser scale, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation with a prayer for revision of his Scale pay and for grant of pay scale at Level-12 under the ORSP Rules, 2017. Since no action has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument, submitted that the Government while considering the case of similarly situated person, namely, P. Tarini Rao, who has retired as A.B.D.O., Sheragada Block, Ganjam allowed the scale pay at Level-12 and he was also granted 3rd RACP with a grade pay of Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 19.06.2014. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the Petitioner stands in a Page 3 of 5. similar footing with the above named P. Tarini Rao, the case of the Petitioner should have been considered at par with the above named P. Tarini Rao. Since no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner, challenging such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the petitioner has been extended benefits as is due and admissible to him under the Finance Dept. on 06.02.2013 as well as the ORSP Rules, 2017. He further contended in the event, the Petitioner has any grievance, he should have approached the Opposite parties before approaching this Court. With regard to the representation, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is no proof that the same has been filed before the Opposite Party No.1 for consideration of the Petitioner’s case. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner be directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents with a further direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same in accordance with law and to dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties as well as on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by Page 4 of 5. granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Opposite party No.1 again by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three weeks from today. In the event, the same is filed, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law and keeping in view the decision taken in the case of P. Tarini Rao and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In the event, the Opposite party No.1 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to enhance the Grade Pay, then the necessary steps be taken for grant of such enhance pay if there are no other legal impediment within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 24-May-2024 14:28:23 Page 5 of 5.