Bhabesh Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8115 Ori

              2IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              WP(C) NO.21578 OF 2021

            Bhabesh Kumar Jena                       ....                Petitioner

                                                          Mr.S.Mishra, Advocate

                                         -versus-


            State of Odisha & Ors.                   ....          Opposite Parties

                                                             Mr.D.Mohapatra,
                                               Standing Counsel for O.Ps.1 to 3
                                                               None for O.P.4


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                       ORDER

03.08.2021

Order No.

1. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:

"Under the above circumstance, it is humbly prayed that the Writ Petition may be allowed ;

a) A writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 09.06.2021 on attaining the age of 48 years as per the ration decided in the case of Radharani Samal Vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2017(I) ILR-CUT-546 with all consequential benefits;

b) Any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar question has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in Radharani Samal vrs. State of Orissa, 2017(I) ILR-CUT-546, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing Writ Appeal No.176 of 2017

// 2 //

preferred by the State vide order dated 30.04.2019. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Radharani Samal (supra).

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department admits the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that direction may be issued to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Radharani Samal (supra), which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2019 by dismissing Writ Appeal No.176 of 2017 preferred by the State.

4. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the ratio decided by this Court in Radharani Samal (supra) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of copy of this order by the petitioner but however taking care of the direction of this Court dated 03.11.2020, passed in W.P.(C) No.22706 of 2020. In the event payment involving petitioner is not released within two months, it shall carry interest @7% per annum for the period of delay and the interest component shall be recovered from the person responsible for such delay.

5. Issue urgent certified copy.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge Manoj Kumar Rout