Pradipta Ku.Sahu Vs State and Ors.

3 . The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned communication issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 16.09.2010 under Annexure-12. Vide the said impugned communication, recommendation made by the Corporation for grant of higher scale of pay in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in favour of the present Petitioner was not considered only on the ground that it is a belated claim.

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

4 . Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as Company Secretary under the Corporation and the post in question having no promotional avenue, a proposal was made in the year 2004 to extend the scale of pay of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,500/- in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under ORSP Rules, 1998. Even though such proposal was submitted to the Department-Opposite Party No.1 time and again and last such recommendation was made vide letter dtd.29.03.2010 under Annexure-11, but such request made by the Opposite Party- Corporation was rejected on the ground that it is a belated claim vide the impugned letter dtd.16.09.2010 under Annexure-12.

¶18

4 . 1 . It is contended that since claim of the Petitioner to get the scale of pay was moved time and against till Annexure-11 was issued lastly on 29.03.2010, it could not have been rejected on the plea that it is a belated claim. It is accordingly contended that Opposite Party No.1 be directed to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the scale of pay of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on merit instead of disposing of the same as a belated claim.

¶19

5 . Mr. L. Pangari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Corporation also supported the contention made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contending inter alia that the scale of pay so claimed by the Petitioner was recommended by the Corporation to

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

the Government at different point of time starting from the year 2004, basing on the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting of the Board of Director on 24.05.2004 under Annexure-4. On the face of such recommendation when no action was taken Petitioner raised the claim to get the scale of pay, Petitioner’s claim was lastly recommended vide letter dtd.29.03.2010 under Annexure-11. However the same was regretted on the ground that it is a belated claim.

¶23

6 . Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned communication contended that since claim of the Petitioner to get the scale of pay of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was only made in the year 2010 under Annexure-11, the same has been rightly rejected being a belated claim vide the impugned communication dtd.16.09.2010 under Annexure-12.

¶24

7 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as Company Secretary under the Corporation and as against the post of Company Secretary there being no promotion avenue, the Board in its proceeding dtd.24.05.2004 under Annexure-4, took a decision to extend the next senior grade status in favour of the Petitioner after five years of service in the lower grade. Accordingly, in terms of the said decision, Petitioner was held eligible to get the

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

benefit of scale of pay of Rs.12,000/- to 16,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the same is reflected under Annexure-3Series. However, on the face of such proposal being made by the Corporation, when no decision was taken and Petitioner raised a grievance, the same was lastly recommended by the Corporation vide letter dtd.29.03.2010 under Annexure-11. However, taking the date of recommendation as 29.03.2010 under Annexure11, Petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that it is a belated claim.

¶28

7 . 1 . This Court taking into account the material available on record is of the view that Petitioner’s claim was under process w.e.f. from the 2004 and on the face of such step being taken when Petitioner could not get the benefit, he approached the Corporation and the Corporation lastly recommended his claim vide order dtd.29.03.2010 under Annexure-11.

¶29

7 . 2 . Therefore, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was regretted vide the impugned communication dtd.16.09.2010 under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing the impugned communication under Annexure12, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim on merit taking into account the recommendation made by the Corporation and the decision taken by the Board in its proceeding dtd.24.05.2004 under Annexure-4 and the approval given

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

// 5 //

¶32

by the Hon’ble Chief Minister so available under Annexure-3-Series.

¶33

7 . 3 . This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. If while considering the claim of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.1 requires the assistance of Opposite Party No.2, then Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to provide necessary instruction.

¶34

8 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶35

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶36

Subrat

¶37

Judge

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 30-Jul-2026 16:53:27