Bipin B.Tripathy Vs State and Ors.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned letter as at Annexure-12 by opposite party No.2 dated 21^st April, 2011 on the grounds stated with a further direction that he is entitled to receive the financial benefits on and from the date of his initial appointment as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 6^th June, 1983 with such other reliefs sought for.

¶18

In course of hearing, Mr. Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has delivered a judgment in Sri Haladhar Mishra and another Vrs. State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.22058 of 2011 decided on 3^rd April, 2018 on the subject matter and it squarely applies to the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the decision (supra) has already been taken

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

judicial notice of by this Court on 16^th May, 2025. No counter affidavit is filed and therefore, Mr. Bahadur. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relief sought for by the petitioner shall have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sri Haladhar Mishra (supra).

¶21

Recorded the submission of learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

¶22

Response of Mrs. S. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State is noted down.

¶23

Opposite party No.3 has filed the counter affidavit, which is, however, not available in the Court’s record. A copy of the said affidavit is produced by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 and the same is gone through.

¶24

Considering the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, the Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner with reference to the decision in Sri Haladhar Mishra (supra). For better appreciation, the Court is further inclined to reproduce the relevant extract of the judgment, which is as follow:

¶25

“8. This Court, after considering the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, is of the view that when there is a stipulation made in the order dated 17.5.1999 to the effect that the seniority from the date of initial appointment shall be counted towards services, but there shall be no financial benefits whatsoever the period of service already rendered, the meaning the meaning of this

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

would be that whatever pay scale of Junior Assistant was on the date of appointment of the petitioners, they will get the corresponding pay scale as on the date of taking them under regular establishment i.e. 17.5.1999. The pay scale of the petitioners is to be re-fixed taking the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500/and if the contention of the State-opposite parties will be taken as correct, then the decision taken by the Housing & Urban Development Department in its order dated 17.5.1999 to the effect that the past services rendered by the categories of employees shall be counted for the purpose of service would be redundant as because if the pay scale would be given on the basis of the pay scale on the date of taking the petitioners under regular establishment, it will be treated to be a fresh appointment and not a regularization, as would be evident from order dated 17.5.1999 that the services of the petitioners were regularized in pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, however, without any financial benefits. This would mean that the petitioner will not be entitled to any arrear of difference of salary rather the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale attached to the post is entitled to be given with prospective effect by counting the period towards seniority.

¶28

The petitioners are not claiming any arrear of difference of salary as per the decision taken by the authority in the order dated 17.5.1999 and as such, it cannot be said that there is any deviation with decision taken vide order dated 17.5.1999. However, it is being gathered from communication dated 4.5.2011 that the decision has been taken to fix the pay scale afresh on the basis of Revised Scale of Pay 2006 and 2008. It does support the

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

contention of the petitioners and as such, the said decision taken by the authority not to give the pay scale taking the past services rendered by them will not be proper.

¶31

In view thereof, whatever the decision taken by the authority on 17.5.1999 by placing the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB25-1500/- with prospective effect will not to be said to suffer from any inference.”

¶32

In view of the above decision and response of opposite party No.3, this Court is inclined and in favour of accepting the plea of the petitioner with the conclusion that the direction contained in the impugned letter at Annexure-12 to be held not legally tenable and also the letter of opposite party No.4 dated 4^th May, 2011 i.e. Annexure-13.

¶33

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶34

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned orders as at Annexures-12 and 13 are hereby set aside for the reason stated herein above.

¶35

11. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶36

A copy of the order be handed over to Mrs. S. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOORojina Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 09-Feb-2026 11:28:06

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Bipin B.Tripathy v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin B.Tripathy v. State and Ors.

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

N.I.Co.Ltd Vs Sushanti Mahanta

Rakesh Das @ Rakesh Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Sarat Chandra Samal Vs State of Odisha

Abhimanyu Mohapatra Vs Nalini Kanta Pradhan

Dayanidhi Paltasingh Vs State of Odisha

Pramila Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)