Kanhu Charan Paltasingh vs State Of Orissa And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12701 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       W.P.(C) (TAC) No.9 of 2017

      Kanhu Charan Paltasingh                   ....            Petitioner
                                               Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
                                    -versus-
      State of Orissa and others                ....      Opposite Parties
                      Mr. S. Jena, Standing Counsel for S.& M.E. Deptt.

              CORAM:
              JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

Order No.                              ORDER
                                      10.12.2021

01.    1.     The short grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ

petition is that Opposite Parties is not allowing the Petitioner to draw his monthly salary in the I.A. C.P.Ed. scale of pay from the date of acquiring the said higher qualification, i.e. from 8th June, 2007 in view of the judgment passed in O.J.C. No.1196 of 1994 (Niranjan Nayak Vrs. State of Orissa), disposed of on 20th June, 2003, reported in 2003 (II) OLR

321.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

3. Mr.Jena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department submits that if the Petitioner approached the appropriate Authority, the Authority may consider his case in the light of the decision cited supra. In that event, he will not object to such suggestion.

// 2 //

4. In such view of the matter, the Petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the Inspector of Schools, Khurda Education Circle, Khurda (now District Education Officer, Khurda), Opposite Party No.3 within a period of four weeks from today. If such representation is filed within the stipulated time, Opposite Party No.3 shall consider the same in the light of the judgment referred to hereinabove by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter. However, the result of such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner by the Authority.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge U.K.Sahoo