The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33872 of 2023 Saroj Ranjan Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. Sadasiva Patra-1, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 30.10.2023 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. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Order dtd. 27.09.2023 under Annexure-3 after declaring the same as illegal. And further be pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner and to pay Rs.5400/- as Grade Pay i.e. Level 12 of Pay matrix after completion of 30 years of service under MACP // 2 // scheme with consequential benefits with arrears within a stipulated time. And order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper.” other pass any 4. It is submitted by Mr.Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13937 of 2022 with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite parties to consider the case of the Petitioner and to pay Grade Pay at the rat of Rs.5400/- on completion of 30 years of service under MACP scheme with all consequential benefits with arrears within a stipulated period of time. This Court vide order dated 11.07.2022 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 5. After disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.3 along with a copy of the order dated 19.07.2022. In the meantime, a communication dated 27.09.2023 under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition was issued wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner has been granted MACP benefit on completion of 30 years of service with effect from 05.05.2018 and that the Petitioner is eligible to higher level (Level- II), which has already been allowed in favour of the Petitioner. Mr.Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that similarly situated employee namely, Chandrasekhar Patra had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21001 of 2022. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Biharilal Barik’s case. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties considered the case of the Chandrasekhar Patra and from the communication of the // 3 // Accounts Officer, State Police H.Qrs dated 04.04.2023 under Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition the above named Chandra Sekhar Patra, who stands in similar footing has been granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- under 3rd RACPS in conformity with the Biharilal Barik’s case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that similar benefit be extended keeping in view the ratio decided in Biharilal Barik’s case. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the case of the Petitioner has been considered pursuant to the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by this Court. He further submitted that in the said order, there is no reference to the Biharilal Barik’s case. Accordingly, the case of the Petitioner shall be considered keeping in view the merits of the Petitioner’s case and it has been decided by the authorities to grant 3rd MACP benefit to the Petitioner with effect from 05.05.2018. Therefore this Writ Petition is devoid of any cause of action as the benefit claimed by the Petitioners has already been granted pursuant to the communication dated 27.09.2023 under Annexue-3. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the case of the Petitioner has been considered pursuant to the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by this Court. He further submitted that in the said order, there is no reference of the Biharilal Barik’s case. Accordingly, the case of the Petitioner shall be keeping in view the merits of the Petitioners’ case and it has been decided by the authorities to grant 3rd MACP benefit to the Petitioner with effect from 05.05.2018. Therefore, this Writ Petition is devoid of any cause of action as the benefit claimed by the Petitioner has already been granted pursuant to the communication dated 27.09.2023 under Annexure-3. // 4 // 8. In reply to the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the problem is to the table appended to the Writ Petition as Annexue-4. Further, referring to the entitlement of the Petitioner, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is entitled to the same Grade Pay as has been extended in the name Chandrasekhar Patra in the light of Biharilal Barik’s case. 9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner, who stands in a similar footing like Chandrasekhar Patra, who has also been extended with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, the case of the Petitioner should have been considered in the same light. Further, it appears that the decision in the case of the Petitioner was taken on 27.09.2023, however, in the case of Chandrasekhar Patra the decision has been taken on 04.04.2023 pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21001 of 2022. Keeping in view the aforesaid discrepancies and the discriminatory treatment to the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to quash the decision dated 27.09.2023 under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. Further, the Opposite Party No.3 is directed to reconsider the grievance of the Petitioner keeping the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biharilal Barik’s case as well as taking into consideration the facts of Chandrasekhar Patra’s case. In the event the authority comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner who stands in similar footing like Chandraksekhar Patra, then similar benefit be also extended in favour of the Petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. // 5 // 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 04-Nov-2023 15:49:15