Gokul Chandra Das vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 11509 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 WP(C) No. 34271 of 2021

            Gokul Chandra Das                      ....                       Petitioner
                                                                    Mr. A.K. Das, Adv.

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

                                                          Addl. Government Advocate.


                         CORAM:
                          DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                            ORDER

10.11.2021 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/- on completion of 30 years of service under the scheme of 3rd RACP/MACP w.e.f. 11.08.2016 in view of Govt. of Odisha, Panchayati Raj Deptt. notification No.9652 dated 19.06.2014 under Annexure-3 and settled principle of law in Bihari Lal case and his pension be revised with payment of consequential benefits.

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 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. While considering the grievance of the petitioner, the order dated 20.01.2014 will be taken into consideration.

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