Orissa High Court
Ajaya Narayan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11306 of 2022
Ajaya Narayan Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Parsuram Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.C. Das, ASC for State
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.05.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the
following relief:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to direct the State/Opposite Parties to
modify the Office order dated 01.07.2020 issued by the
Finance Department under Annexure-2 by clarifying part-4
and further direct to issue the final Pension Payment Order
in acting upon the order dated 12.05.2020 under
Annexure-3 with further direction in the nature of writ of
Mandamus to the opposite parties, more specifically
opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 for taking prompt action to
release/issue final pension to the petitioner under Revised
Assured Career Progression (RACP) Scheme in terms of
the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of
Biharilal Barik vs. State of Odisha to secure ends of justice
and further direct to revise the pension and other retiral
benefits according to last revised pension of the Petitioner."
// 2 //
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
prayer made in the writ petition is covered by a judgment of this
Court in the case of Biharilal Barik vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C)
No.2831 of 2016, disposed of on 27.06.2016), which has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No.20358 of 2017
decided on 23.08.2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submits that he undertakes to file a afresh representation before the
Authority indicating the benefits claimed by the Petitioner as per the
judgment in the case of Biharilal Barik (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that
he has no objection if the Petitioner files a fresh representation
before the Authority in the light of the judgment cited supra, which
may be considered and disposed of by the Authority within a
stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the limited nature
of grievance, this writ petition stands disposed of at the stage of
admission with a direction to the Petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the Collector, Puri, Opposite Party No.4
highlighting his grievance within a period of two weeks from today.
In the event, such a representation is filed before the Opposite Party
No.4, the same shall be considered and disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months
thereafter. However, decision so taken shall be communicated to the
Petitioner within a period of two weeks. In the event the Authorities
come to a conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Biharilal Barik
(supra), the final benefits which are payable to the Petitioner shall
// 3 //
be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of taking
a decision in the matter.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
