Sarat Kumar Baral Vs State of Odisha

1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was heard at length. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent was not called for to make his submissions since the matter is listed and taken up for the fresh admission.

¶15

2. The Writ Appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the order (iii) dated 04.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Petition bearing No.25011 of 2019.

¶16

Supporting the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to the order passed in the Writ Petition impugned in the Writ Appeal which is reproduced herein: -

¶17

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

¶18

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶20

“Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the opp. parties to release the RACP benefit to the petitioner as per the sanction letter dated 1.3.2016 under

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

Annexure-6 and to revise the scale of pay of the present petitioner under Orissa Revise Scale of Pay Rule 201 7 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶23

4. Taking into account the submissions made, the Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.3 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶24

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed by the ventilating his grievances, the same shall be considered and disposed of by Opp. party No.3 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶25

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.”

¶26

3. Referring to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is submitted that in the Writ Petition, counter affidavit was filed by the opposite party No.3 i.e. respondent No.3 denying that petitioner/ appellant is entitled for the benefit sought for in the Writ Application.

¶27

4. The Writ Application was filed with the following prayers:-

¶28

“iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the opp. parties to release the RACP benefit to the petitioner as per the sanction letter dated 1.3.2016 under Annexure -6 and to revise the scale of pay of the present petitioner under Orissa Revise Scale of Pay Rule 2017 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court……”

¶29

5. In context of the prayer No. (iii) as quoted above in the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the appellant was asked whether any order that was passed by any authority, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) from 01.03.2016 and revised scale of pay as

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

per Odisha Revised Scales of Pay (ORSP) Rules, 2017 was challenged. It is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such order was ever passed by any authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶32

Apparently, the petitioner directly approached this Court as he expected that he is entitled for RACP with effect from 01.03.2016 and revised scale of pay as per ORSP Rules, 2017 without there being any reported consideration by any authority. We also notice that the learned Single Judge has not in any manner endorsed the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.3, rather passed specific order directing the authority thus:-

¶33

“ 5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed by the petitioner ventilating his grievances, the same shall be considered and disposed of by Opp. party No.3 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.”

¶34

6. Further it is apparent that I.A. No.20335 of 2023 was filed by the appellant-petitioner for modification of order dated 04.12.2023, the said I.A. was dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing thus: -

¶35

“3. Considering the nature of order passed on 04.12.2023, this Court is not inclined to modify the order.” 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the materials on record and delving into the merits of the mater, we do not find any merit in the contention that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in as much as, no order passed by any authority was sought to be challenged before the learned Single Judge. As very fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, without approaching the authority the

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

petitioner had straightaway come to the Court seeking writ of mandamus.

¶38

8. There is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the mater has been delayed, if the petitioner is entitled for RACP as per letter dated 01.03.2016 and revised scale of pay as per ORSP Rules, 2017.

¶39

Without interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we further directed that the authority shall proceed expeditiously in the matter as directed by the learned Single Judge to decide the claim of the appellant-petitioner within a period of three months from today.

¶40

It is clarified that the pleadings before the learned Single Judge shall no away prejudice, the petitioner or the authority in deciding the matter.

¶41

The authorities to act upon the production of the certified copy of the order passed today in the Writ Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant undertakes that the certified copy shall be produced before the appropriate authority(s).

¶42

Along with the certified copy and relevant records shall be forwarded by the respondent No.3, who is the appropriate authority immediately upon production before him.

¶43

9. The Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

(Manash Ranjan Pathak)

¶46

Judge

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)