Duryodhan Meher Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Duryodhan Meher Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: the official Opposite Parties, through the learned ASC's undertaking accepted by the Court, to consider the petitioner's subject representation (dated 10.09.2024, Annexure-9) in accordance with law in a time-bound way, within three months, communicating the result to the petitioner; petitioner free to furnish a fresh copy of the representation; Opposite Party No.1 may solicit requisite information/documents without delay; all contentions kept open; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, retired as Reader (State Scale) in English from a fully aided educational institution, is entitled to placement benefit in Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay and Reader (State Scale) respectively w.e.f. 01.06.2003 and 01.06.2013, after completion of 08 years and 18 years of service from receipt of Grant-in-aid, pursuant to Rule-4(1) of the 2014 Rules and the law in Chittaranjan Das and Dolamani Meher & batch, requiring modification of the Govt. Notifications dt. 17.04.2017 & 07.12.2020. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

This Court disposed of the writ petition, setting a period of three months for consideration of the petitioner's subject representation and for communication of the result of that consideration to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open; the substantive placement-benefit entitlement was not adjudicated in this order.ratio¶21
It was left open to Opposite Party No.1 to solicit any information or document from the petitioner's side required for due consideration of the subject representation, with the express caveat that in that guise delay shall not be brooked.ratio¶23
The Court accepted the arrangement in which the learned ASC undertook to instruct his client to look into the grievance aired in the subject representation in accordance with law and in a time-bound way, and learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to the same.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ORDER dated 14.11.2025 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.) in W.P.(C) No.31885 of 2025 - Duryodhan Meher v. State of Odisha & Others. Petitioner, retired as Reader (State Scale) in English from a fully aided educational institution, challenged the State-Opposite Parties' inaction in extending placement benefit in Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay and Reader (State Scale) w.e.f. 01.06.2003 and 01.06.2013 respectively (after 08 and 18 years of service from receipt of Grant-in-aid), invoking Rule-4(1) of the Odisha Non-government aided college Lecturer's Placement Rules, 2014 and the law in Chittaranjan Das Vrs. State Of Odisha & Ors., 2023 (II) ILR-Cut-1194 and Dolamani Meher and batch Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.4312 Of 2016, disposed 06.07.2023), praying for modification of the Govt. Notifications dt. 17.04.2017 & 07.12.2020; grievance earlier pressed through representation dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-9), counsel invoking the Article 350 mandate to consider representations. Accepting the learned ASC's undertaking to have the grievance looked into in accordance with law in a time-bound way, the Court DISPOSED OF the writ petition, allowing three months for consideration of the subject representation and communication of the result to the petitioner, permitted furnishing of a fresh copy of the representation, allowed Opposite Party No.1 to solicit requisite information/documents with the caveat that delay shall not be brooked, KEPT ALL CONTENTIONS OPEN, and made no order as to costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.31885 of 2025

Duryodhan Meher

…. Petitioner

Mr. R. Samal, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 01.

14.11.2025

The petitioner has sensitively stated his entire case in an appreciable way in the synopsis, which reads as under:-

“That petitioner, who retired as Reader (State Scale) in English while working 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 for placement in Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay, as well as Reader (State Scale) respectively w.e.f. 01.06.2003 and 01.06.2013 respectively i.e. after completion of 08 years and 18 years of service from the date of receipt of Grant-in-aid as per the law decided by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das Vrs. State Of Odisha & Ors. Reported in 2023 (II) ILR-Cut-1194, so also the similar judgment passed in the case of Dolamani Meher and batch Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors.(W.P.(C) No.4312 Of 2016 and batch disposed on 06.07.2023), keeping in view provision provided under Rule-4(1) of the Odisha Non-government aided college Lecturer's Placement Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred as "2014 Rules") by modifying the Govt. Notification dt. 17.04.2017 & 07.12.2020 in so far as it relates to the present petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that though this Hon'ble Court while adjudicating the 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 stand on the

Page 1 of 3

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, but till date the State-Opp.Parties are sitting tight over the matter without any valid reason, for which the petitioner finding no other alternative, except to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing the present writ application. Hence this Writ Application.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the representation dated 10.09.2024, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-9, 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.

Learned ASC 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.

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.

Page 2 of 3

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.

Now, no costs.

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

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

Prasant

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 3

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2025 10:32:35