The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16383 of 2023 Alok Pradhan and Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.B. Jena, Adv. State of Odisha and Others …. -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 30.10.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 15.03.2023, so passed by O.P. No.2 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioners for revision of their option so furnished in terms of the provisions contained under ORSP Rules, 2017( in short Rules) was rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that basing on the Notification issued by the Finance Department on 20.09.2017 under Annexure-1, petitioners submitted their option to come over to get the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2016. However, after such submission of their option, when they found that they have submitted a wrong option, they made applications for revision of their option // 2 // and to get the benefit w.e.f. 10.05.2017 in place of 01.01.2016. 4.1. It is contended that when such prayer of the petitioners for revision of their option was rejected vide order dated 09.07.2019 under Annexure-6, petitioner challenging such rejection, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1397(c) of 2018. However, the said original application after being transferred to this Court, was
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2022 under Annexure-8, inter alia with the following direction so contained in Para- 8:- “8. the claim of the Petitioners by In that view of the matter, since the Petitioners have sustained a financial loss, which causes undue hardship, in that case, by invoking Rule-16, the authorities should have extended the benefit to the Petitioners. Non consideration of Rule- 16, while passing the order dated 09.07.2019 the rejecting Government for change of option cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Under Secretary to Government in Home. Department under Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the State Authority to re-consider the case of the petitioners by invoking the power of relaxation as provided under Rule-16 of the ORSP Rules, 2017, in accordance with law. Needless to say that when a power of relaxation-is made available under the Rules, the authority cannot and could not have ignore the same, rather by applying ’the said relaxation power, the State can pass appropriate order in accordance with law.” 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions contained under Rule-16 of the Rules, since power of relaxation is there to relax any provisions which causes undue hardship in any particular Page 2 of 6 // 3 // case, placing reliance on the said rule, this Court while quashing the earlier rejection made vide order dated 09.07.2019, directed the Opp. Parties to invoke Rule-16 of the Rules and to take a decision with regard to the claim made by the petitioners for revision of their option. 4.3. However, vide the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 under Annexure-9, O.P. No.2 without proper appreciation of the direction so contained in order dated 26.09.2022, rejected the claim on the ground that, it will open a flood gate, if such benefit is extended in favour of the petitioners. 4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that taking into account the direction contained in order dated 26.09.2022 under Annexure-8, the ground on which petitioners’ claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that in terms of the Notification issued under Annexure-1, all the petitioners exercised their option to draw their pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016, but subsequently represented to consider their claim to get the benefit w.e.f. 10.05.2017 instead of 01.01.2016. 5.1. However, such claim of the petitioners for revision of their option was rejected vide order dated 09.07.2019 under Annexure-6. Such rejection when was challenged before Page 3 of 6 // 4 // this Court, this Court while interfering with the order, directed the authority to re-consider the claim of the petitioners, taking recourse to the provision contained under Rule-16 of the Rules. 5.2. It is contended that since petitioners exercised their option knowing fully well the repercussion thereof, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-6(4) of the Rules, no such application for revised option is entertainable. Accordingly, it is contended that since petitioners after going through the Rules, submitted their option and accordingly they were extended with the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2016, no such application for revision of the option is entertainable in view of the provision contained under Rule 6(4) of the Rules. 5.3. It is also contended that since this Court in its order dated 20.09.2022, directed for consideration of the petitioners’ claim, taking recourse to Rule-16, after due consideration of the petitioners’ claim, the same has been rejected vide order dated 15.03.2023 under Annexure-9. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authorities while rejecting such claim of the petitioners. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that basing on the Notification issued by the Finance Department on 20.09.2017 with framing of the ORSP Rules, 2017, petitioners submitted their option to get the benefit w.e.f. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 01.01.2016. But as found, petitioners submitted their revised option to get the benefit w.e.f. 10.05.2017 within the prescribed period of 90 days. But such claim of the petitioners for revision of their option was rejected vide order dated 09.07.2019 under Annexure-6, taking recourse to the provision contained under Rule-6(4) of the Rules. 6.1. It is found that such rejection of the petitioners’ claim was assailed by the petitioners before this Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.1397 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 26.09.2022 under Annexure-8 while quashing the impugned rejection dated 09.07.2019, directed the authorities to consider petitioners’ claim by applying Rule- 16 of the Rules. Rule-16 of the Rules reads as follows:- to relax- Where “16. Power the Finance Department is satisfied that the operation of all or any of the provisions of these rules cause/ causes undue hardship in any particular case, they may, in the public interest, by order, dispense with or the requirements of all or any such provisions to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be deemed necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” relax 6.2. But as found, without applying the provision contained under Rule-16, claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that if such benefit will be extended in favour of the petitioners, the same will open a flood gate. Taking into account the nature of order passed in the earlier writ petition under Annexure-8 which was never assailed, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which petitioners claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 6.3. Since this Court in its order under Annexure-8, clearly directed to consider petitioners’ claim by applying Rule-16 of the Rules, such direction could not have been over reached by taking a view that it will open a flood gate. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 15.03.2023 so passed by O.P. No.2 under Annexure-9. While quashing the said order, this Court directs O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision in the light of the earlier order of this Court so passed on 26.09.2022 under Annexure-8 and by invoking Rule-16 of the Rules to the case of the petitioners. Such a fresh order be passed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. If on consideration, it will be held that petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the revised option, consequential follow up action be taken within a further period of 2 (two) months. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Basudev Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Nov-2025 17:33:47 Page 6 of 6