State of Odisha & Anr. Pradipta Kumar Satapathy … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 2535 of 2023 State of Odisha & Anr. Pradipta Kumar Satapathy ….. Vs. ….. Appellants Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA Respondents Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, Advocate Order No. 2 CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 11.01.2024 I.A. No.7445 of 2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This application has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the writ appeal. 3. Heard Mr. R.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Considering the grounds taken in the application, delay of 75 days in filing the writ appeal is allowed. 5. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 1 of 4 W.A. No. 2535 of 2023 3 Heard Mr. R.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The State of Odisha and its functionary, being the appellants have filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in WPC (OA) No.592 of 2017, by which learned Single Judge, while quashing the office order dated 17.04.2017, directed opposite party no.1 to extend the benefit of 3rd RACP in favour of the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2013, if he is otherwise eligible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and on such consideration, if it is found that the respondent was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of 3rd RACP as on 01.01.2013, the financial benefit as due and admissible shall also be released within the aforesaid period. 3. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the respondent is not entitled to get the benefit of 3rd RACP. It is contended that as per record, the respondent has been rightly allowed 3rd RACP in the Pay Band Rs.9300-34800+G.P. 4800, without fixation of pay (3% incremental benefit) w.e.f. 01.01.2013. RACP Resolution dated 06.02.2013 provides benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion which means the pay shall be raised by 3% of total of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade pay drawn before such upgradation. The employees of the cadre having promotional hierarchy will get the Grade Pay of the promotional post. The employees in isolated/ex-cadre posts not having any promotional hierarchy will get the next higher Grade pay as per the first schedule Page 2 of 4 of ORSP Rules, 2008 with the interpolations, if any, introduced subsequently and paragraph-18 of the aforesaid Resolution states that Assured Career Progression (ACP) availed under OSRP Rules, 2008 shall not be taken into account while considering the RACPS in favour of an employee. But no pay fixation shall be allowed by extending the benefit of 3% of Basic Pay and Grade Pay to the existing Pay but only the Grade Pay as applicable shall be allowed while giving RACPS. Paragraph-11 of the finance Department Resolution dated 16.12.2008 stipulates for grant of RACP. But, the learned Single Judge, while passing the order impugned, has not taken into consideration of the aforesaid facts. Therefore, the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC (OA) No.592 of 2017 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that this question no more res integra in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Bikash Ranjan Dash & Anr. (W.P.(C) No.18749 of 2018 and batch, disposed of on 29.10.2021). In paragraph-34 of the said judgment, this Court held as follows: “34. Upon carefully examining the resolution dated 6th February 2013, it is seen the above upgradation effected in 2009 as a result of restructuring of the cadre cannot be construed to be an upgradation which would deny the benefit of the RACPS which in any event was not in force at the relevant point in time. For the same reason, the TBA granted earlier in 2005 cannot be considered to be as an upgradation which would deny the Opposite Parties the benefit of the RACPS. In other words, merely because the employee had availed a TBA or ACP prior to 2013, he cannot be denied to the benefit of the RACPS. Unless a person has already got a promotion within time period of 10, 20, 30 years in the manner indicated, he cannot be denied the RACPS benefit.”. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Single Judge is well justified in passing the order dated 23.06.2023 in WPC (OA) No.592 of 2017 which does not require interference of this Court at this stage. 5. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Page 3 of 4 parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that in W.P.(C) No.18749 of 2018, it is held that since the Resolution dated 06.02.2013 has been taken into consideration, restructuring of the cadre cannot be construed to be an upgradation which would deny the benefit of RACPS, which in any event was not in force at the relevant point of time. The TBA granted earlier cannot be considered to be an upgradation which would deny the respondent the benefit of the RACPS. More specifically, it is stated that merely because the employee had availed a TBA or ACP prior to 2013, he cannot be denied the benefit of the RACPS. Unless a person gets a promotion within time period of 10, 20 and 30 years, he cannot be denied the RACPS benefit. If this principle is adhrered to, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit, as claimed in the writ petition. Therefore, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in WPC (OA) No.592 of 2017 so as to cause interference of this Court at this stage 6. In the above view of the matter, this writ appeal merits no consideration, which is accordingly dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUDGE Alok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-Jan-2024 14:20:35 Page 4 of 4