Sangram Keshari Dash Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) Nos. 17850, 17605, 17646, 17649, 17651 & 17681 of 2025 WP(C) No. 17850 of 2025

¶2

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶5

25.09.2025

¶6

Order No. 03

¶7

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶8

Pursuant to order dtd.16.09.2025, though an instruction has been provided, but it is found that nothing has been indicated as to why on the face of the order passed by tis Court in its letter dtd.12.05.2022, benefit has been extended prospectively instead of allowing the same in terms of the Judgment.

¶9

Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶10

Since all these writ petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the communications issued by the Govt. in the Works Department vide letter dtd.25.01.2024 and the minutes of the meeting held on 15.04.2024 under Annexure-7, all the matters are heard analogously and dispose of by the present common order.

¶11

Page 1 of 4.

¶12

It is contended that Petitioners are before this Court in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3396 of 2013 & batch challenging inter alia order dtd.19.07.2013 and with a direction on the Opp. Parties to allow the scale of pay attached to Class III post as per ORSP Rules, 2008.

¶13

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the batch of writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide Judgment dtd.12.05.2022 under Annexure-5 inter alia with the following direction so contained in Para 17:-

¶14

“This Court accordingly while quashing the same, directs the Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of the scale of pay of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with G.P of Rs.1900/- in favour of the Petitioners herein. This Court further directs the Opp. Parties to sanction and disburse the differential salary as due and admissible in in favour favour of the Petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶15

5.2. It is contended that this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.19.07.2013 though directed Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of scale of pay of Rs.5200/- - Rs.20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- in favour of the Petitioner in the batch of writ petitions, but while implementing the said order vide the impugned letter dtd.25.01.2024, the said benefit has been extended prospectively to all other Work Sarkars working presently in the Works Department.

¶16

5.3. It is contended that since by the time the writ petitions were disposed of, these Petitioners had already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and on the face of the direction

¶17

Page 2 of 4.

¶18

contained in Para 17, the benefit was extended prospectively, Petitioners were deprived to get the benefit so extended.

¶19

5.4. It is contended that taking into account the nature of direction issued by this Court in the earlier direction vide Judgment dtd.12.05.2022 while implementing the same, there was no question to extend the benefit prospectively instead of allowing the benefits in favour of all the Petitioners who were Party to the Judgment as Work Sarkars. It is accordingly contended that the impugned communication issued by the Department dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-6 and the proceeding of the meeting dtd.15.04.2025 under Annexure-7 in that regard are not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶20

5.5. Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the instruction contended that since while implementing the order, Finance Department-Opp. Party No. 2 opined to extend the benefit in favour of Works Sarkar prospectively, the same has been extended accordingly by the Works Department vide its communication dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that vide order dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that since Finance Department opined to give the benefit prospectively on the face of the Judgment passed by this Court on 12.05.2022 under Annexure-5, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioners along with others were before this Court in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3396 of 2013 & batch and this Court while disposing the present batch of

¶22

Page 3 of 4.

¶23

writ petitions, held the Works Sarkars working under Works Department entitled to get the benefit of scale of pay of Rs.5200/- - Rs.202000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/-.

¶24

6.1. It is not disputed that such an order passed by this Court was never assailed, further implemented vide the impugned letter dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-6. However, it is found, that vide the said communication the benefit has been extended prospectively in favour of the Works Sarkars working in the Works Department. This Court taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court vide Judgment dtd.12.05.2022, is of the view that the benefit should have been extended in favour of all the employees instead of extending the same prospectively from the date of their eligibility.

¶25

Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to extend the benefit in favour of the Petitioners from the date of their eligibility, but on notional basis and revise the pension and pensionary benefits accordingly. Consequential differential pension and pensionary benefits be released in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶26

All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

¶27

Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case records.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Sneha Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Oct-2025 13:12:20

¶30

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶31

Page 4 of 4.

Sangram Keshari Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Keshari Dash 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aparna Nayak Vs Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Berhampur

Surendra Kishore Rout Vs the Chief Executive Officer Tpcold., Khurda

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Nilamani Mohanty Vs C.E.O.,Elect.Cesu

Sarat Chandra Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Penthoi Vs State of Odisha