Ramprasad Rath vs State Of Orissa And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3878 Ori

                                     // 1 //




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     W.P.(C) No.19107 of 2022
        Ramprasad Rath                            ....         Petitioner
                                                   Mr. G.K. Nanda, Adv.
                                   -versus-
        State of Orissa and Ors.               ....      Opposite Parties
                                               Mr. Debasis Mohapatra, SC
                                                     (for S & ME Deptt.)

                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order                           ORDER
No.                            10.08.2022
 01.    1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

        2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

        3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction

        from this Court to the opposite parties to revise his

        monthly salary in Trained Graduate Scale of Pay and to

        disburse the differential arrear salary as well as the

        current monthly salary in Trained Graduate Scale of Pay

        from the date of attaining the age of 48 years i.e. from

        11.07.2013 on the basis of School and Mass Education

        Department Resolution dated 05.09.2011 and letter

        No.6259 dated 16.04.2010 as well as the letter dated

        11.01.2011 issued by the opposite party No.2- Director of

        Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and taking

                                                               Page 1 of 4
                                        // 2 //




        into account the judgment passed in the case of

        Radharani Samal -vrs.- State of Odisha1.

        4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this

        Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the case of

        Akshya Kumar Nayak -vrs. State of Orissa and Ors.

        vide common judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed in

        W.P.(C) No.5480 of 2021 and batch of cases. Hence, he

        submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the

        light of the judgment passed in the case of Akshya

        Kumar Nayak (supra).

        5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Department of

        School and Mass Education submits that he has no

        objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the

        judgment passed in the case of Akshya Kumar Nayak

        (supra).

        6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in

        the case of Akshya Kumar Nayak (supra), it appears that

        similar issue has already been decided by this Court in

        the said judgment which was disposed of on 04.08.2022.

        The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows.

                   "33. This Court is unable to accept the
                   submission of learned Standing Counsel for the
                   Department of School and Mass Education as

1
    2017 (I) ILR-CUT-546
                                                              Page 2 of 4
                        // 3 //




the petitioner's entitlement to avail Trained
Graduate Scale of pay flows from the
Government resolution dated 18.02.2008 and
the Petitioner possesses the minimum
qualification as mandated by the said
resolution. It is also submitted that the
petitioner attained 48 years of age as on
11.07.2016

, after the clarificatory order of the State Government dated 06.05.2014 and therefore, the agitation of claim could not have been done in the same timeline as the issuance of the clarificatory order. Hence, it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation and stale.

34.This Court is of the view that the grievance voiced by the petitioner appears to be well founded and he would be entitled to re-fixation of scale of pay. Since, there are statutory rules occupying the field, the petitioner is entitled to requisite remedy by relying on such rules. Moreover, where a service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. In the case at hand, the issue was in relation to refixation of pay and in such circumstances, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties.

35. In the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time-to-time, it is postulated that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly and only because one person has

// 4 //

approached the Court would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees; the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit; not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

36. In the light of above discussions and guided by the precedents narrated hereinabove, this Court hereby allows the present Writ Petition as well as the connected batch of Writ Petitions.

37. Accordingly, this Writ Petition along with the connected batch of Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to cost."

7. In view of the aforesaid common judgment passed in

W.P.(C) No.5480 of 2021 and batch of cases, this Writ

Petition is disposed of being allowed.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

proper application.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge BJ