Bhagabata Naik vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12533 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               WP(C) No. 37741 of 2021

            Bhagabata Naik                      ....                      Petitioner
                                                               Mr. A.K. Das, Adv.

                                             -Versus -
            State of Odisha & Ors.              ....                 Opposite Party

                                                     Addl. Government Advocate.


                       CORAM:
                        DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                        ORDER

06.12.2021 Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the State opposite parties for sanction and disbursement of Grade pay Rs.5400/- instead of Rs.4800/- in 2nd RACP on completion of 20 years of service w.e.f. 02.11.2014 in view of Panchayati Raj Deptt. Notification No.9652 dt. 19.06.2014 under Annexure-3, where the Grade pay of District Panchayat Officer has been upgraded from Rs.4800/- to Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 19.06.2014 and as per the settled principle of law in Bihari Lal case and consequently, the pay fixation order vide No.989 dated 15.03.2017 allowing grade pay Rs.4800/- in 2nd RACP under Annexure-5 be modified accordingly.

3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner states that similar question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2831 of 2016 disposed of on

27.06.2016 (State of Odisha and another v. Bihari Lal and others), which was arising out of an order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 520 of 2014 and this Court quashed the order dated 21.12.2013 (wrongly mentioned as 21.12.2012 in the judgment) and held that the applicants are eligible to get financial upgradation in the posts of GPEO/PA, ABDO/SDPO and DPO on completion of 10/20/30 years of service in the post of VLW under the RACP scheme. Therefore, the petitioner's case may be considered in the light of the said judgment.

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate states that if the Division Bench of this Court has resolved the issue, then the petitioner may approach the authority concerned ventilating his grievance.

5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned by filing representation brining to the notice of the authority the judgment in Bihari Lal (supra), to which the authority shall apply his mind and pass appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

6. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge Ajay