Manoj Patnaik Vs State of Odisha

“That petitioner, who is working as a Reader (Sate Scale) in Commerce in a fully aided educational institution is constrained to file this writ application challenging the inaction of the State Opp.Parties in not extending the benefit of placement in Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay, as well as Reader (State Scale) retrospectively w.e.f. 01.06.2002 and 01.06.2012 respectively i.e. after completion of 08 years and 18 years of service from the date of eligibility to receive Grant-in-aid as per the law decided by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.8976 of 2017 disposed of on 03.04.2023), so also a similar judgment was passed in the case of Dolamani Meher and batch Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.4312 of 2016 and batch disposed of on 06.07.2023), keeping in view the provision provided under rule-4(1) of the Odisha Nongovernment aided College Lecturer’s Placement Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “2014 Rules”) by modifying the Notification 28.10.2017, in so far as it relates to the present petitioner is

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

concerned. It is submitted that though this Hon’ble Court while adjudicating a similar issue in the case of Chittaranjan Das and Dolamani Meher & batch (supra) has already laid down the law which has been implemented in the meantime and the petitioner who stands on the same footing and also made several grievances before the authorities with a request to extend the similar benefits as per the aforesaid principle decided by this Hon’ble Court, till date the State-Opp. Parties are sitting tight over the matter without any valid reason, on the other hand, the State Govt. while deciding to implement the judgment to passed in the case of Chittaranjan Das (supra), indicated that such compliance must not be cited as a precedent and such action of the Opp. Parties are not only illegal and arbitrary but also contrary to the law. Hence this writ application.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the representation dated 21.06.2024, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-4, ventilating his grievance. He submits that there is a constitutional mandate enacted in Article 350, which directs that the Public Authorities have to consider the grievances aired by the citizens in their representations and grant redressal in accordance with the extant Rules. Further he says that this having not happened inevitably, he is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the official Opp. Parties opposed the writ petition for some time and now, he submits that he would instruct his client to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as has been aired in the subject representation in accordance with law and in a time-bound way and this Court keeps open all contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable with the same. I too cotton with it.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off. Time for consideration and communication of result of such consideration to the petitioner is three months. All contentions are kept open. It is open to the petitioner to give a copy of the representation afresh immediately.

¶23

It is open to Opp. Party No.1 to solicit any information or document from the side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the subject representation; however in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.

¶24

Now, no costs.

¶25

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶26

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶27

Madhusmita

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 18:47:02

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Manoj Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Patnaik 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

Litun Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Asisa Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Mitali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Banabihari Rath Vs State of Odisha

State of Orissa Vs Rabinarayan Panda

Chandi Prasad Vs Addl.Dist.Magistrate