Bharat Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

“i. Issue appropriate writ/writs holding that the order NO.53 dated 29.02.2016 under Annexure-4 allowing Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- as 3^rd Financial upgradation and office order No.290 dated 24.10.2024 under Annexure-8 allowing the pay level-8 w.e.f. 29.11.2022 to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the same.

¶18

ii. Issue appropriate writ/writs directing the

¶19

opposite paties to allow grade pay of Rs.4600/towards 3^rd Financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of service i.e. with effect from 22.09.2014 with arrear dues.

¶20

iii. The Hon’ble Court further be pleased to pass such other appropriate direction/directions or order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Forest Guard on ad hoc basis on 02.02.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner on being selected through a regular selection process, was allowed to continue as such on 22.09.1984. In the year 2009, the petitioner on being recommended by the DPC was promoted to the post of Forester vide order dated 12.02.2009 under Annexure-2 to the writ application.

¶22

While the matter stood thus, on 06.02.2013, the RACP Scheme was introduced by virtue of the Resolution of the Finance Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the resolution dated 06.02.2013 of the Finance Department is applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was initially allowed Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- with effect from 22.09.1984 by virtue of order dated 29.02.2016, on completion of 30 years of service.

¶23

Being aggrieved by the quantum of scale of Grade Pay, the petitioner approached the authority by claiming Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in terms of the Resolution dated 06.02.2013. While working as such,

¶24

2

¶25

the petitioner has retired from Government service with effect from 31.05.2024, on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the petitioner was not extended with the appropriate Grade Pay, he has submitted a representation on 22.09.2021 claiming Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- towards 3^rd RACP on completion of 30 years of service. Reminder of the representation was also given on 17.02.2022.

¶26

Since no decision was taken by the opposite parties, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38894 of 2023. The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 04.12.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the opposite parties by filing a detailed representation with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated time period.

¶27

In obedience to the order dated 04.12.2023, the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-7 was considered and the petitioner was allowed pay level-8 instead of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- with effect from 22.09.1984. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Deo vrs. State of Odisha and others passed in W.P.(C) No.933 of 2021 along with batch of similar

¶29

3

¶30

cases, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27.04.2023, contended that the ratio laid down in the said cases can very well be applied to the facts of the present case. He further contended that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the latest Resolution of the Finance Department dated 13.02.2025. He further contended that the opposite parties without taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of this Court as well as the Resolution dated 13.02.2025, rejected the prayer for the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.2024 under Annexure-8.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that he has not obtained any instruction. Therefore, he has not filed any counter affidavit. However, taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Deo ( supra ) as well as the Resolution dated 13.02.2025, if this Court directs the opposite party to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time period, he will have no objection to the same.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made, the factual background of the case and taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Deo (supra) and the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 13.02.2025, this Court

¶33

4

¶34

thinks it proper to remand the matter to the opposite party no.3 to consider the whole issue again in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Deo (supra) as well as the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 13.02.2025 and reconsider the grievance of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking order. The opposite party no.3 while reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall not be influenced by his earlier order under Annexure-8. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶35

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application is disposed of.

¶36

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 10-Apr-2025 16:24:36

¶39

5

Bharat Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhashree Suchismita @ Sahoo Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, Optcl., Bbsr

Urmila Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Patra Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Bhusan Pattnaik Vs Director, Horticulture, Govt of Odisha

Manoranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Banchhanidhi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha