Disposed

Banchanidhi Takiri v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Nov 2023WP(C)/4443/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate departmental authority to claim benefits under the RACP Scheme and ORSP Rules before pursuing a writ remedy. The court communicated requirements for pension calculations and disposal within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Opposite Party No.5 with certified copy of order and judgment; consideration within six weeks.

Banchanidhi Takiri Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4443 of 2023

¶3

Banchanidhi Takiri

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr.P.K.Rath, Sr. Advocate

-versus-

Order No.

State of Odisha and others

¶9

…. Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A. Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA ORDER

¶12

20.11.2023

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha.

¶15

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶16

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further writ/direction, quash the order dated 12.11.2020, 31.08.2020, 04.02.2021, 06.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 19.08.2022, 14.09.2022 under Annexure-1 Series & order dated 07.11.2019 under Annexure-2 to the extent illegally fixing Grade Pay of the petitioner at Rs.4,800/- and direct the Opposite Parites to sanction Grade Pay @ Rs.5400/- in favour of the petitioner, and accordingly authorized the final pension of the petitioner at a higher

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

grade pay with arrears within a stipulated period.”

¶19

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Village Level Worker on 19.9.1981 under Annexure-3. The said post of Village Level Worker (VLW) was redesignated as Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO) in the year 2015. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further referring to the judgment of the Tribunal which was confirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Biharilal Barik and others submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to financial upgradation under the RACP Scheme. Accordingly, he claims for MACP under ORSP Rules, 2017 which has not been considered by the State-Opposite Parties, As such the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition for redressal of his grievance.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of Biharilal Barik -vrs.State of Orissa by the Tribunal as has been confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, applies to the Petitioner’s case where the grant of benefit under the RACP Scheme is involved. He further submitted that the ratio in Biharilal Barik case is not applied to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner is to be considered under the ORSP Rule, 2017 under which the Petitioner is claiming the benefit. He further submitted that the Petitioner has not approached the Departmental Authority before approaching this Court. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Petitioner be directed to approach the Departmental Authority before pursuing the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by learned counsels and

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

upon careful examination of the background facts of the present case and on perusal of the documents annexed to the writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5 along with certified copy of this order and the copy of the judgment he is relying upon in support of his claim. In the event, the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.5, the Opposite Party No.5 shall do well not only to consider the case of the Petitioner, further he is also directed to comply with the requirements as communicated to him by the Accounts Officer of the Office of Accountant General, Odisha issued under Annexure-1 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.5 is further directed to act on production of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶27

Debasis

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 23-Nov-2023 19:32:24

Banchanidhi Takiri v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banchanidhi Takiri v. State of Odisha

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

Ramahari Pattajoshi Vs Bhaskarjyoti Sharma,Ias

Abhiram Naik Vs Ashok K.K.Meena, I.A.S.

G.Ananda Dora Vs Diptesh Kumar Pattanayak, I.P.S.

Jaya Ku.Choudhury Vs Principal Secy.to

Hemanta Kumar Padhi Vs State of Odisha

Soma Ranjan Panda Vs State of Odisha