Orissa High Court
Dr. Renuprava Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C. (O.A.) No.268 of 2016
Dr. Renuprava Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
Order No.
18.07.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual/physical mode.
2. The Original Application No.268 of 2016 was filed
before the State Administrative Tribunal, Odisha
Bhubaneswar. After its abolition, the same has been
transferred to this Court which is renumbered as WPC (OA)
No.268 of 2016.
3. The Petitioner claiming to be serving as Leave
Reserve Ayurvedic Medical Officer at District Ayurvedic
Medical Officer, Cuttack approached by way of writ petition
with a prayer to extend the benefit of Revised Assured Career
Progression Scheme benefit with effect from 01.01.2013 on
completion of 30 years of service. It is brought to the notice of
this Court that Government of Odisha in Health & Family
Welfare Department, Government of Odisha vide letter
No.HFW-AYUR-AYURM-0039-2015-21167 dated
23.09.2015, addressed to the Director, AYUSH, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, specifically mentioned that since the Finance
Department would take a policy decision on this score, it shall
have the uniform applicability to all similarly situated cases
1 of 1
// 2 //
and in the said letter, it has been clarified by the Under
Secretary to Government that the Director is requested to
await final decision in this regard.
4. The Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide order dated
09.02.2016 though issued notice directing for filing counter
affidavit, as yet no counter affidavit has come to be filed by
the Opposite Parties. Since the matter has been pending since
2016, no fruitful purpose would be served to further
adjourning the matter. However, a Division Bench decision of
this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2021 in the case of State
of Odisha and others -v- Bikash Ranjan Dash and another,
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1839 has been cited at the
bar with regard to entitlement of Revised Assured Career
Progression vis-a-vis upgradation of the posts in the
Government from Class-II to Class-I. It has been clarified,
inter alia, as follows:-
"xx xx xx xx
(vi) (vi) The benefits granted to the employees of TBA under the
ORSP Rules, 1998 or the ACP granted under the ORSP Rules,
2008 cannot be conflated with the entitlements in terms of the
RACPS. The objective of introducing the RACP Resolution dated
6th February 2013 as reflected in para-1 of the scheme attached to
the Resolution is to overcome the situation created by the
continuance of an employee for a long period in his entry grade
in a single cadre "in absence of promotion". Therefore, the
authorities are precluded from interpreting the RACPS
Resolution by comparing its scope of applicability with some
other service/financial benefit. The financial benefits granted in
shape of TBA & ACP under the different pay revision rules are
statutory in nature and do not constitute a bar for availing the
benefit of RACPS.
xx xx xx xx
34. Upon carefully examining the resolution dated 6 th February
2013, it is seen the above upgradation effected in 2009 as a result
of restructuring of the cadre cannot be construed to be an
upgradation which would deny the benefit of the RACPS which in
any event was not in force at the relevant point in time. For the
same reason, the TBA granted earlier in 2005 cannot be
considered to be as an upgradation which would deny the
Opposite Parties the benefit of the RACPS. In other words, merely
because the employee had availed a TBA or ACP prior to 2013,
he cannot be denied to the benefit of the RACPS. Unless a person
// 3 //
has already got a promotion within time period of 10, 20 and 30
years in the manner indicated, he cannot be denied the RACPS
benefit."
xx xx xx xx"
In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court,
which came in the year 2021, it would be mete and proper to
direct the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1-
Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar along with certified copy of this order
within a period of four weeks from today. In the event the
Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party, the said authority
shall take a decision in the light of the judgment of this Court
in the case of State of Odisha and others -v- Bikash Ranjan
Dash and another (supra) and reasoned order shall be
communicated to the Petitioner forthwith.
5. The entire exercise is required to be concluded within
a period of three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Jyostna
