Laxman Kumar Mahanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8950 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 WPC NO.25739 OF 2021

            Laxman Kumar Mahanta                         ....                Petitioner

                                                           Mr.A.K.Apat, Advocate

                                            -versus-

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

                                               Mr.D.Mohapatra, Standing Counsel


                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                          ORDER

26.08.2021 Order No.

01. 1. This writ petition involves the following prayer:

"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (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. 4.2.2017 on attaining age of 48 years as per the ratio decided in the case of Radharani Samal Vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2017(I) ILR-CUT-546 with all consequential benefits;

And

(b) any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty hound shall ever pray."

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

// 2 //

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 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.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge M.K.Rout