Sanjaya Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha

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

¶15

By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships be graciously pleased to pass following relief(s):-

¶17

(i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit & allow the Writ Petition,

¶18

(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.4 to allow the petitioner

¶19

Page 1 of 4 .

¶20

to discharge the duty of Peon during the day hour in the school without posting so also insisting him to discharge the duty of Night Watchman by further disbursing the withheld salary /duty pay as well as the annual incremental benefits from October, 2025 onwards in favour of the petitioner within a time bound period for the interest of justice.

¶21

(iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner, who happens to be a physically disabled person, initially was appointed as a Peon as he was having the requisite qualification and he was posted at Madhuban Sikshashram High School, Salang against the post of 3^rd Peon on 30.12.2013. He further contended that such appointment of the Petitioner was by the Managing Committee of the School and that since the date of his initial appointment, the Petitioner has been continuing in service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while the Petitioner was continuing, the school in question came within the fold of GIA as per Government Notification dated 24.09.2015 and accordingly vide Office Order No.2785 dated 02.03.2016, all the Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the Petitioner’s school were allowed 40% GIA w.e.f. 01.10.2015 under the GIA Rules, 2016. Such GIA was subsequently enhanced to 60% vide Notification dated 16.01.2019 of the Government of Odisha. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that since October, 2025, the

¶23

Page 2 of 4 .

¶24

Petitioner has been asked to discharge the duty of Night Watchman. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party No.4 whereby his salary/duty pay as well as the pensionary benefits have been withdrawn, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that although the Petitioner has been discharging his duty, however, he has not been paid his salary and other financial benefits as is due and admissible to him. Being aggrieved by such illegal conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. However taking into consideration the nature of the grievance involved in the present writ petition, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner has not approached the competent authority for redressal of his grievance prior to approaching this Court, he submitted that he will have no objection in the event this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority, i.e. Opposite Party No.3-District Education Officer, Puri by filing a detailed representation with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law and as per the applicable rules within a stipulated period of time.

¶27

Page 3 of 4 .

¶28

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further taking note of the issue involved in the present writ petition, and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Party No.3, who is the competent authority, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the applicable rules and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of filing such representation. The final decision so taken on such representation be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶31

Judge

¶32

Debasis

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 20-Mar-2026 19:39:59

¶35

Page 4 of 4 .

Sanjaya Kumar Barik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaya Kumar Barik 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Committee of Panchayat High School, Mandar, Dhenkanal Vs State of Odisha

Nalinikanta Parida Vs Amulya Parida

Rukmani Mahalik Vs Department of School and Mass Education, Bhubaneswar

Suryakanta Satapathy Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Chandra Behera Vs Pawan Kumar Sultania

Md. Azimuz Zaman Vs Md. Abdus Samad