Govinda Chandra Badu vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 430 Ori

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                              W.P. (C) No. 883 of 2022

            Govinda Chandra Badu                   ....                             Petitioner
                                                                     Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate
                                                    -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others             ....                      Opposite Parties
                                                                   Standing Counsel S&ME
                              CORAM:
                                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                                    ORDER

20.01.2022

Order No. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

2. Heard Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for direction to the opposite parties to take immediate steps to disburse the differential arrear salary as well as current monthly salary in Trained Graduate Scale of pay from the date of attaining the age of 48 years on the basis of School and Mass Education Department Resolution dated 18.02.2008 and letter No.6259 dated 16.04.2010 as well as letter No.1772 dated 11.01.2011 of Director, Secondary Education, Odisha and the rules framed thereunder within a stipulated period.

4. Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar question has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in 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).

5. 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.

6. 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 production of authenticated/certified copy of this order.

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.

Arun                                                     (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                               Judge