Sailendra Kumar Pattnaik vs State Of Orissa And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8516 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.23941 of 2021

            Sailendra Kumar Pattnaik                ....             Petitioner
                                                              Mr. S.K. Mishra,
                                                                     Advocate
                                        -versus-
            State of Orissa and Ors.                ....      Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. Biplab Mohanty,
                                             Standing Counsel, S. & M.E. Deptt.

                     CORAM:
                     JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                        ORDER

13.08.2021 Order No.

02. 1. Let one extra copy of the writ petition be served on learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department in course of the date.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.

3. Petitioner has filed this application claiming I.A.C.P.Ed. scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1994 to till today and all consequential service benefits pursuant to law laid down by this Court in the case of Niranjan Nayak and another v. State of Orissa and others, 2003 (II) OLR 321.

4. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Niranjan Nayak and another v. State of Orissa and others, 2003 (II) OLR 321. He further submits that on the recommendation by the District Education Officer,

// 2 //

Dhenkanal, pursuant to representation under Annexure-6 to opposite party no.2, which is pending for consideration.

5. Considering the contentions raised by the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party nos.2 & 3 to verify as to whether the petitioner has requisite qualification for getting I.A.C.P.Ed. Scale or not. On verification, if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said scale of pay by applying the ratio decided in Niranjan Nayak Case (supra), the same shall be allowed in favour of the petitioner and the differential arrear salary w.e.f. 01.06.1994 to till date shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner taking into consideration the letter dated 17.06.2021 under Annexure-6 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication/production of this order by the petitioner.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

U.K.Sahoo