Abhiram Naik vs State Of Odisha & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9284 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No. 25904 of 2021

            Abhiram Naik                    .....                   Petitioner
                                                       Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Adv.
                                         -Versus-

            State of Odisha & Others        .....               Opposite Parties
                                                                 State Counsel
                       CORAM:
                           DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI


                                         ORDER

03.09.2021

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

01.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to opposite parties to allow the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- instead of Rs.4800/- towards 3rd RACP w.e.f. 24.02.2016 on completion of 30 years of service in the light of the judgment dated 27.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 2831 /2016(State of Odisha and another v. Bihari Lal and others) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.08.2017 in Diary No. 20358 of 2017 as has been extended to other similarly situated persons vide Annexure-4 and thereby quashing the order dated 19.08.2021 vide Annexure-2.

4. 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. 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.

Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE