Dillip Kumar Ray vs State Of Odisha& Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 10153 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.29173 of 2021


            Dillip Kumar Ray                       ....             Petitioner
                                                            Mr. T.K. Nayak,
                                                                  Advocate
                                        -versus-
            State of Odisha& Ors.                  ....  Opposite Parties
                                                      Mr. D. Mohapatra,
                                                Standing Counsel for the
                                     School & Mass Education Department

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                       ORDER

23.09.2021 Order No.

01. 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to opposite parties to take immediate steps to disburse the differential arrear salary as well as current monthly salary in Trained Graduate scale of pay in favour of the Petitioner from the date of attaining the age of 48 years, on the basis of the Orissa Education Rules, 1974, S.M.E. Dept. Resolution dated 18.02.2008 and Letter No.6259 dt.16.04.2010 as well as the Letter No.1772 dt.11.01.2011 of the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as order passed in the case of Radharani Samal Vs. State of Odisha & others, reported in 2017 (I) ILR-CUT- 546, within a stipulated period.

2. Learned counsel for Petitioner contended that similar question has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in

// 2 //

Radharani Samal vrs. State of Orissa, 2017(I) ILR-CUT-546, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by 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 four months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner.

5. The Writ Petition thus stands disposed of

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

A.K. Jena