Dharmendra Kar Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with the following prayers:-

¶22

“It is prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to;

¶23

i) Admit and allow the writ petition and; ii) Quash the impugned order vide No. 13680 dated 09.08.2023 under Aimexure-17 and;

¶24

iii) Further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to step up/equalize the pay of the

¶25

Page 1 of 5.

¶26

petitioners at par with his junior Sri Guru Charan Patra and disburse the arrears of salary within a stipulated period of time; iv) And pass such other orders/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and bona-fide interest of justice.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that being aggrieved by order dated 09.08.2023 of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-17 to the writ petition, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. He further contended that under the impugned order the claim of the Petitioners for stepping up of their pay has been rejected. However, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioners no reason whatsoever has been assigned. It further appears that a junior to the Petitioners, namely, Sri Guru Charan Patra has been extended with the benefit of stepping up of pay.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioners assails the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 to the writ petition on grounds that the order of rejection does not indicate any reason as to why the prayer of the Petitioners has been regretted by the Finance Department and no such reason has been communicated to the Petitioners. He further contended that the impugned rejection order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94 . Learned counsel for the Petitioners specifically referred to the paragraph-17 of the

¶29

Page 2 of 5.

¶30

judgment in Gurucharan Singh Grewal’s case (supra), which is quoted herein below:-

¶31

“17. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra’s submission about the difference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the prayer of the Petitioners was duly considered by the Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that since the proposal for stepping up of pay of the Petitioners was regretted by the Finance Department, the same has been communicated to the Petitioners by the Opposite Party No.1. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Party No.1 has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 to the writ petition. Accordingly, he further contended that the preset writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, further keeping in view the

¶34

Page 3 of 5.

¶35

documents annexed to the writ petition as well as the grievance of the Petitioners as involved in the present writ petition, this Court, at the outset, observes that the impugned rejection order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 does not stand to any reason as no reason whatsoever has been given while regretting the proposal for stepping up of pay of the Petitioners. This Court at this juncture would like to observe that the administrative authorities while deciding the issue pertaining to the employees are required to assign reasons.

¶36

Since this Court found that no reason has been assigned while rejecting the claim of the Petitioners, the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioners afresh by taking into consideration the above noted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the fact that the junior to the Petitioners, namely Sri Guru Charan Patra has already been extended the benefits of stepping up of pay. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to consider the grievance of the Petitioners by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioners within ten days thereafter.

¶37

It is further observes that in the event it is found that the

¶38

Page 4 of 5.

¶39

Petitioners stand in a similar footing with their junior, namely, Sri Guru Charan Patra and the case of the Petitioners fall within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh Grewal’s case (supra) and in the absence of any legal impediment, then the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to extend the benefit of stepping up of pay to the Petitioners at par with their junior Sri Guru Charan Patra, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision.

¶40

With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶42

Debasis

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 29-Apr-2025 14:31:23

¶45

Page 5 of 5.

Dharmendra Kar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kar 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

Basanti Panda Vs State of Odisha

Babita Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ramjit Kumar Hansda Vs State of Odisha

Malay Sasmal Vs Junior Engineer, Electrical, Rasulgarh Fulnakhara Sub-Division

P.Ramudu Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Somanath Khamari Vs State of Odisha