Allowed

Aswin Ku.Patnaik v. State

Orissa HC6 Mar 2019WP(C)/6553/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking promotion to Assistant Technician posting and corresponding pay scale with differential arrear salary. Citing a prior order, the court directed the opposite parties to process the petitioner's case within four months.

What did the court decide?

The opposite parties directed to consider the petitioner in light of Bhagyarathi Nanda order and grant scale of pay Rs.950-1500/- with differential arrear salary within four months.

Aswin Ku.Patnaik Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 6553 of 2008

¶2

06.03.2019 Heard Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to opposite parties to allow him to continue in the post of Assistant Technician and to draw the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/per month and grant him all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him.

¶4

Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was continuing as Jr. Technician in the scale of pay of Rs.800-1150/- per month, but subsequently he claims that he should be promoted to the post of Asst. Technician in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/- per month with effect from 30.09.1997 when the post was made available at the relevant point of time. It is further contended that though the petitioner discharging the same nature of duty assigned to him in accordance with law, the benefit should have been extended to him. He further contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order of this Court rendered in the case of Bhagyarathi Nanda v.

¶5

State of Orissa (OJC No.4764 of 2001 disposed of on 22.04.2014). It is stated that against the said order, review petition bearing RVWPET No.86 of 2014 has also

¶6

¶7

been filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2014. Again, challenging the order passed in the review petition, writ appeal bearing W.A. No.108 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite parties, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2016. As such, after dismissal of the writ appeal, the benefit has already been extended to the petitioner therein, namely, Bhagyarathi Nanda by the opposite parties. Therefore, the petitioner having stood in the same footing, the benefit with regard to scale of pay as well as differential arrear salary should have been extended to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶8

Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that since the petitioner claims benefit against opposite party no.2, State has nothing to do in the matter.

¶9

Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 contended that Asst. Technician post has already been abolished three years back, therefore against nonexistence of the said post, the petitioner cannot be adjusted. Thereby, the claim made in the writ petition cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶10

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the petitioner was initially appointed as Jr. Technician in the scale of pay of Rs.800-1150/- and subsequently he was entitled to the post of Asst. Technician, which was made available at the relevant point

¶11

¶12

of time and without giving such benefit, the petitioner has been harassed by the opposite parties, this Court disposes of the writ petition with the direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in Bhagyarathi Nanda v. State of Orissa (OJC No.4764 of 2001 disposed of on 22.04.2014) and grant the benefit as due and admissible to the petitioner with differential arrear salary in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/- as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶14

Ashok

¶15

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Aswin Ku.Patnaik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswin Ku.Patnaik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohito Roulo Vs State and Ors.

Biswajit Kanungo Vs State

Sarada Prasanna Sahu Vs State

Narendra Naik Vs State and Ors.

Harekrishna Mohanty Vs State

Mamata Bhoi Vs State