Satrughan Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for the A.G., Odisha. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶19

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue Rule Nisi or any other appropriate Writs against the Opp. parties calling upon the opposite parties particularly OP No.5 to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to

¶20

Page 1 of 5.

¶21

sanction & disburse the final pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner by taking into consideration the order at Annexure-2 and 3;

¶22

And, if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute by directing the opposite parties particularly OP No.5 to sanction & disburse the final pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner by taking into consideration the order at Annexure-2 and 3.

¶23

And/or issue any other appropriate Writ/Writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case.”

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that after the judgment of this Court in Biharilal Barik case, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government of Odisha issued a general approval order vide Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department Memo no.18586 dated 26.09.2017 wherein a clarification was given to all Collectors in respect of sanction of RACP in respect of VLW.

¶25

On perusal of the said letter, it appears that the Government was pleased to sanction RACP in respect of all eligible VLWs and has sanctioned financial upgradation in the post of GPEO/PA/ABDO/SDPO and DPO on completion of 10/20/30 years of service in the post of VLW under the RACP scheme. Hence, the VLW are eligible to get Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service in the cadre of VLW with effect from 01.01.2013 under RACP Scheme. The aforesaid decision of the Government has the concurrence of the Finance Department vide UOR No.1969/PSF dated 15.09.2017. On the basis of the sanction accorded by the Government vide Memo No.26.09.2017 the present Petitioner who

¶26

Page 2 of 5.

¶27

was working as VLW in the district of Angul has been extended the benefits of RACP by District Office, Angul vide Order No.168 dated 09.02.2018. A copy of the Memo has been attached to the writ application under Annexure-2. On perusal of records, it appears that the Petitioner is placed at sl.no.36 and the date of entry in to service is 03.07.2002 and he has been given sanction to receive 1^st RACP at the rate of Rs.4200/- with effect from 01.01.2013. Thereafter the Government of Odisha vide a General Order dated 01.07.2020 issued by the Finance Department to all the departments of Government extended the Grade Pay to all State Government employees under RACP scheme as per the principle laid down in Biharilal Barik’s case.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submits that A.G. Orissa (AE), Odisha, Bhubaneswar is raising an objection with regard to disbursement of 1^st RACP amount after the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard draws the attention of this Court to letter dated 03.12.2024 under Annxure-4 to the writ application. On perusal of the letter issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the A.G.Orissa, it appears that due to nonproduction of sanction for implementation of order by the Administrative department towards grant of higher Grade Pay under RACP Scheme the case of the Petitioner has been returned for proper compliance. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since there is approval by the concerned Administrative department, in a general order involving all the State Government employees, there is no necessity to grant approval in individual case. Moreover, Law laid down by this Court which was

¶29

Page 3 of 5.

¶30

affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biharilal Barik’s case, the State Government adopted the law laid down by judicial pronouncement in respect of the Government Employees working under the State of Odisha. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Office of A.G. is unnecessarily causing harassment to the petitioner and similarly situated persons by insisting upon production of approval in individual case. He further submits that the Petitioner, who is retired by now is being unnecessarily harassed by such administrative obstacle.

¶31

Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.13283 of 2022 and batch of others in respect of similarly placed employees of Subarnapur district submits that this Court directed the Collector, Subarnapur to examine the issue and write a letter to the A.G Odisha in favour of the Petitioner. Further, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid case the Collector, Subarnapur wrote a letter to the A.G. and on the basis of such letter, the Petitioners have been extended the benefit of RACP scheme. In such view of the matter, the Petitioner prays for similar direction in the present case.

¶32

Mr.S.K.Patra appearing for A.G. Odisha submits that administrative approval is necessary to disburse the Grade Pay under RACP scheme and other related benefits. Since there was no specific administrative approval in the present case, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered and the file has been returned for proper compliance.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful consideration of the present case and analysis of the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the general

¶34

Page 4 of 5.

¶35

administrative approval granted by the State Government in the Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water department no approval is required in individual cases. Therefore, following the direction issued by this Court in Nishi Ranjan Pattanaik-vrs.State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.13283 of 2022 dated 27.06.2022 and batch of other cases this Court directs the Collector, Angul to examine the case of the Petitioner and write a letter to the A.G.Odisha within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the event such a letter is issued by the Collector, Angul, the A.G.of Odisha shall do well to do the needful to sanction and disburse the RACP benefit in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of letter from the Collector, Angul.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶37

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶38

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶39

Anil

¶40

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Feb-2025 15:13:09

Satrughan Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satrughan Biswal 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharati Bisi Vs Principal Secy, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Dept., Odisha, Bbsr

Sujit Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Abinash Tarai Vs State of Odisha

Kailash Naik Vs State of Odisha

Manash Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Ankita Sahani Vs the Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept, Bbsr