Samir Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8368 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) No.23077 of 2021


            Samir Kumar Nayak                       ....            Petitioner
                                                               Mr. S. Samal,
                                                                   Advocate
                                         -versus-
            State of Odisha & Ors.                  ....  Opposite Parties
                                                        Mr. B. Mohanty,
                                                 Standing Counsel for the
                                      School & Mass Education Department

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                        ORDER

10.08.2021 Order No.

02. 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for direction to opposite party nos.1 to 3 to take immediate steps to disburse the differential arrear salary as well as current monthly salary in Trained Graduate scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of attaining the age of 48 years, on the basis of the S.M.E. Dept. Resolution dated 18.02.2008 and Letter No.6259 dt.16.04.2010 as well as the Letter No.1772 dt.11.01.2011 of the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as order passed in the case of Radharani Samal Vs. State of Odisha & others, reported in 2017 (I) ILR-CUT-546, within a stipulated period.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that similar question has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in

// 2 //

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 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 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 four months from the date of communication of copy of this order by the petitioner.

5. The Writ Petition thus stands disposed of

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Ayas Kanta Jena