Tushman Dharua vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 10547 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   W.P.(C) No.30114 OF 2021

Tushman Dharua                            .....                 Petitioners

                                                      Mr. Anil Kumar Das,
                                                                 Advocate
                                  Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                    .....           Opposite parties

                                                     Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

01.10.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the State opposite parties to modify the wrong fixation of his pay on 3rd MACP under Annexure-9 series and fix up pay of the petitioner taking into accont grade pay of Rs.5400/- on completion of 30 years of service in the post of VLW/PEO under 3rd MACP w.e.f. 18.02.2016 in Level- 12, Cell-1 at Rs.56,100/- in correct interpretation of the provisions under Rule 13(ii) read with 13(v) of the ORSP Rules, 2017 under Annexure-8 and the settled principle of law in Bihari Lal case.

4. 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.

5. Mr. A.K. Sharma, 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.

6. 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.

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

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)