Muralidhar Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9458 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             WP(C) No. 26138 of 2021

             Muralidhar Nayak                   ...                   Petitioner
                                                        Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
                                            -Versus -
             State of Odisha and others         ...             Opposite Parties
                                                        Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA


                     CORAM:
                      DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                       ORDER

09.09.2021

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

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties for sanction and disbursement of grade pay of Rs.5400/- in 3rd RACP from 12.12.2015 in view of Panchayati Raj Department Notification dated 19.06.2014 under Annexure-4 where grade pay of District Panchayat Officer has been enhanced from Rs.4800/- to Rs.5400/-.

4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, 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 contentions 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.

A.K. Rana                                               (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                             Judge