Sarojabala Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1058 Ori

                                    1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                 WPC (OAC) No.2842 OF 2010

Sarojabala Pattnaik                       .....                 Petitioner

                                                Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate
                                  Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                    .....         Opposite parties

                                                           State Counsel


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

04.02.2022

Order No. This matter is taken up through video conferencing

mode.

2. Heard Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Prusty, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department through video conferencing mode.

3. The petitioner has filed this application claiming I.A. C.P.Ed. scale of pay with effect from the date he acquired requisite qualification, i.e. from 30.06.2006 and give all the consequential service benefits pursuant to law laid down by this Court in the case of Niranjan Nayak and another v. State of Orissa and others, 2003(II) OLR 321.

4. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Niranjan Nayak and another v. State of Orissa and others, 2003(II) OLR 321. He further submits that the petitioner has made a

representation under Annexure- 5 before opposite party no.1, which is pending for consideration.

5. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.1 to verify as to whether the petitioner has requisite qualification for getting I.A.C.P.E.D Scale or not. On verification, if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said scale of pay by applying the ratio decided in Niranjan Nayak case (supra), the same shall be allowed in favour of the petitioner and the differential arrear salary shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication/production of authenticated copy this order.

6. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID- 19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020, as modified by Court's notice no. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021, and Court's Office Order circulated vide Memo Nos.514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE