The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25003 of 2023 Prafulla Kumar Maharana …. Petitioner State of Odisha & others -versus- Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. I. Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 09.08.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : Order No. 01. ii) “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs; i) To direct the Opp.Parties to fix the scale of pay of the Petitioner under different ORSP Rules i.e. 1989, 1998 and 2008 To direct the Opp.Parties to grant TBA/ACP consequent upon fixation of his scale of pay and on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of service. iii) To direct the Opp.Parties to release the arrear salary of the Petitioner consequent upon fixation of his scale of pay. To direct the Opp.Parties to release the pension and other post retiral dues of the Petitioner with 18% interest. To direct the Opp.Parties to sanction the increments iv) v) // 2 // from 1993 onwards. vi) And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the present Petitioner who was working as Revenue Inspector in the office of Sadar Tahasil, Cuttack on 28.06.1972. Thereafter, in the year 1973 a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him. The Departmental Proceeding the Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2479(C) of 1998 for quashing the Departmental proceeding. While the aforesaid O.A. was pending, the Departmental proceeding was dropped on 20.05.1999 under Annexure-3 to the writ application. On 31.05.1999 the petitioner was reinstated in service, finally the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.08.2012. Since, the Petitioner need not get his retiral as well as pensionary benefits after his retirement from service. The Petitioner approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal again by filing the O.A. No.1077(C) of 2016 with a prayer for fixation of his pay under the relevant ORSP Rules and for grant of TBA/RACP benefits. The learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 02.11.2017 allowed the prayer of the Petitioner with a direction to the Opposite Parties to fix the pay of the applicant under ORSP Rules and to grant TBA/RACP benefits. Since, the order of the Tribunal was not implemented, the Petitioner filed a contempt application which was disposed of on 08.02.2022 by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The Opposite Parties challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2019 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 while dismissing the writ application as affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to compliance affidavit filed by the Contemnor to the Contempt application under Annexure-8 submitted // 3 // before this Court that the Opposite Parties made a submission before this Court that they have already complied with the order. However, on a perusal of the compliance order dated 22.09.2022 under Annexure-8 reveals that only a part of the direction of the Tribunal has been complied with by the Opposite Parties. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the Opposite Parties have already complied with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, in the event, the Petitioner feels that the order of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal has not complied with, then he should have approached the Opposite Parties by filing a grievance petition taking therein that grievance as to how the order has not been implemented instead of approaching this Court by filing the writ application. Therefore, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the present writ application should not be maintained by this Court at this juncture. 6. Considering the submission made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and further on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 02.11.2017 which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court has attained finality. In para-8 of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5 to the writ application, the direction given by the Tribunal is very clear and specific and there is no ambiguity. Therefore, the Opposite Parties should have implemented the same in its entirety. However, on perusal of compliance order under Annexure-8 it appears a part of the Tribunal’s direction has been complied with by the Opposite Parties. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose // 4 // of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Collector, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order. In the event, the petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same strictly in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 02.11.2017 in O.A. No.1077(C) of 2016 and the benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner in terms of para-8 of the order of the Tribunal be calculated and released, sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of taking such a decision if there is no other legal impediment. Any decision taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Aug-2023 18:22:45